Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
There are a lot of misunderstandings here I don't have the time to address, but I can do a few
1) "Turn the other cheek" means "don't make a big deal out of nothing" and "have the social grace not to turn small infractions into fights". He says turn the other cheek when you are slapped, not when someone attacks you with weapons. I'll give you an example: when I was in my apartment in Chicago a few years go, an older woman gave me lip because I didn't move out of the way fast enough. I could see she was clearly having a bad day, so instead of escalating, I simply smiled and moved on my way. The next day, she saw me again and apologized profusely for how rude she was. Her daughter was in the hospital after being attacked and was having trouble breathing, so again I smiled and simply said "apology accepted". We had several pleasant interactions from then until I moved a year or so later. There were many ruthless and well-justified wars fought in the Bible.
2) Frankly, "move to a safe neighborhood" is a "let them eat cake"-ism. Good luck to the bottom 30% trying to afford the necessary funds to move.
3) If "regulated" means "run by the state", that would make America a socialist country because we "regulate" various business activities. As these entities are still owned by shareholders, this is a faulty definition.
4) Most of these militias do not believe that situation currently exists. They believe that it has a material possibility some time in the future, and they want to be prepared when it does and, even better, act as potential deterrence, the same way we do with Mutually Assured Destruction concepts with regards to nuclear war.
5) Comparisons between high-gun and low-gun ownership countries is cherry picked at best. We could just as easily point to high gun ownership countries like New Zealand or Switzerland (mentioned in the video below)
6) Also mentioned, people who resist intruders with a firearm are half as likely to be injured as those who offer no resistance
Alas, I know I am unusually zealous about this issue, so I'll leave you with this clip from Dr. Thomas Sowell's work and let cooler heads give a better explanation.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-02-2022, 04:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2022, 04:37 PM by Eric the Green.)
How does U.S. gun policy compare with the rest of the world?
May 26, 2022 7:19 PM EDT
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-...-the-world
The debate over gun control in the United States has waxed and waned over the years, stirred by frequent mass shootings in civilian settings. In particular, the killing of 20 schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012 reignited a national discussion about gun laws. However, legislation that would have banned semiautomatic weapons was defeated in the Senate despite extensive public support.
READ MORE: 3 things to know about America’s relentless gun violence
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/3-th...n-violence
http://Recent years have seen some of th...S. history. In 2020, nearly 20,000 Americans lost their lives to guns, the highest toll in more than two decades; and the trend looks likely to continue through 2021.
Many gun control advocates say the United States should look to the experiences of its wealthy democratic peers that have instituted tighter restrictions to curb gun violence.
United States
Gun ownership in the United States is rooted in the Second Amendment of the Constitution: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, has 46 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns, according to a 2018 report by the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey. It ranks number one in firearms per capita. The United States also has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate of the world’s most-developed nations. But many gun rights proponents say these statistics do not indicate a causal relationship.
READ MORE: We asked every senator what action should be taken on guns. Here’s what they said
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/wh...ry-senator
However, the right to bear arms is not unlimited. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld some firearms restrictions, such as bans on concealed weapons and on the possession of certain types of weapons, as well as prohibitions against the sale of guns to certain categories of people. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits individuals under 18 years of age, convicted criminals, the mentally disabled, dishonorably discharged military personnel, and others from purchasing firearms. In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandated background checks for all unlicensed individuals purchasing a firearm from a federally authorized dealer.
At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court has rolled back certain gun laws. In 2008, the court struck down a Washington, DC, law that banned handguns.
Federal law provides the basis for firearm regulation in the United States, but states and cities can impose further restrictions. Some states, such as Alaska, Idaho, and Kansas, have passed various laws attempting to nullify federal gun legislation, but legal analysts say these are unconstitutional.
In 2016, President Barack Obama took several actions in response to the San Bernardino shooting that were intended to decrease gun violence, including a measure requiring dealers of firearms at gun shows or online to obtain federal licenses and conduct background checks.
In 2017, President Donald Trump responded to a pair of mass shootings—in Las Vegas and Parkland, Florida—by imposing a regulatory ban on so-called bump stocks, devices that allow semiautomatic guns to fire at a rate approaching that of automatic weapons. However, a federal court put the ban on hold in March 2021, ruling that bump stocks do not qualify as machine guns under the law. But Trump also supported some measures that eased gun restrictions, including a bill that rolled back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase guns.
WATCH: Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke confronts Texas Gov. Abbott at news briefing for Uvalde school shooting
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/wa...l-shooting
As of 2021, there were no federal laws banning semiautomatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity magazines. There was a federal prohibition on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines between 1994 and 2004, but Congress allowed these restrictions to expire.
Mass killings have surged amid the COVID-19 pandemic. As of July, more than 8,000 people were killed in shootings in 2021. That’s approximately 54 lives lost per day, which is 14 more than the daily average of the previous six years.
Canada
As in the United States, Canada’s national government sets gun restrictions that the provinces, territories, and municipalities can supplement. And like its southern neighbor, Canada’s gun laws have often been driven by gun violence. In 1989, a student armed with a semiautomatic rifle killed 14 students and injured more than a dozen others at a Montreal engineering school. The incident is widely credited with driving major gun reforms that imposed a 28-day waiting period for purchases; mandatory safety training courses; more detailed background checks; bans on large-capacity magazines; and bans or greater restrictions on military-style firearms and ammunition.
Firearms in Canada are divided into three classes: nonrestricted weapons, such as ordinary rifles and shotguns; restricted, such as handguns and semiautomatic rifles or shotguns; and prohibited, such as automatic weapons. It is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon unless it was registered before 1978.
READ MORE: Senate GOP blocks domestic terrorism bill, gun policy debate after 2 recent mass shootings
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/se...-shootings
Changes to the law in 1995 required individuals to obtain a license to buy guns and ammunition, as well as register all firearms. However, in 2012, the requirement to register nonrestricted guns was dropped, and related public records were expunged. Following another mass shooting, at a Quebec City mosque in 2017, the government passed a bill to again require nonrestricted firearms to be registered and allow background checks to consider events from more than five years in the past. In 2020, after a gunman killed 22 people in Canada’s deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a ban on “assault-style” firearms—a demand gun control activists had been pushing for decades. The legislation also required those who owned now-prohibited firearms to either participate in a buyback program or comply with a strict storage regime.
Australia
The inflection point for modern gun control in Australia was the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, when a young man killed 35 people and wounded nearly two dozen others. The rampage, perpetrated with a semiautomatic rifle, was the worst mass shooting in the nation’s history. Less than two weeks later, the conservative-led national government pushed through fundamental changes to the country’s gun laws in cooperation with the various states and territories, which regulate firearms.
The National Agreement on Firearms [PDF] all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, mandated licensing and registration, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation. Among other things, the law also required licensees to demonstrate a “genuine need” for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety course. After another high-profile shooting, in Melbourne in 2002, Australia’s handgun laws were tightened as well. Many analysts said these measures were highly effective, citing declines in gun-death rates and gun-related mass killings.
Following an uptick in gun sales in 2017, however, Australian gun control advocates warned against the easing of gun laws in some states and territories. The gun safety discussion was also influenced by the suspected murder-suicide of a family of seven in Western Australia, the country’s worst mass shooting in two decades. Today, Australia has more guns in circulation than before the Port Arthur massacre, although the number of people who own them has fallen over the same period.
Israel
Military service is compulsory in Israel, and guns are a part of everyday life. Much of the population has indirect access to an assault weapon by either being a soldier or a reservist or a relative of one. By law, most 18-year-olds are drafted, psychologically screened, and provided at least some weapons training after high school. After serving typically two or three years in the armed forces, however, most Israelis are discharged and subject to civilian gun laws.
READ MORE: Newtown parents feel ‘transported back in time’ after Uvalde shooting
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/newt...e-shooting
The country has relatively strict gun regulations, including an assault-weapons ban and a requirement to register ownership with the government. To obtain a gun license, an applicant must be an Israeli citizen or permanent resident and speak at least some Hebrew, Israel’s official language, among other qualifications. The minimum-age requirements vary: 27 for citizens with no military or national-service experience,21 for those who have served, and 45 for permanent residents who are not citizens. Applicants must also show genuine cause to carry a firearm, such as self-defense or hunting.
United Kingdom
Modern gun control efforts in the United Kingdom have been precipitated by extraordinary acts of violence that sparked public outrage and, eventually, political action. In 1987, a lone gunman armed with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun went on a six-hour shooting spree roughly 70 miles west of London, killing more than a dozen people and then himself. In the wake of the incident, known as the Hungerford massacre, Britain introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act, which expanded the list of banned weapons, including certain semiautomatic rifles, and increased registration requirements for other weapons.
READ MORE: Frustrated onlookers urged police to charge into Texas school as massacre unfolded, witnesses say
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/frus...nesses-say
A gun-related tragedy in the Scottish town of Dunblane in 1996 prompted Britain’s strictest gun laws yet. A man armed with four handguns shot and killed 16 schoolchildren and one adult before committing suicide in the country’s worst mass shooting to date. The incident sparked a public campaign known as the Snowdrop Petition, which helped drive legislation banning handguns, with few exceptions. The government also instituted a temporary gun buyback program, which many credit with taking tens of thousands of illegal or unwanted guns out of supply.
Norway
Gun control had rarely been much of a political issue in Norway—where gun laws are viewed as tough, but ownership rates are high—until a right-wing extremist killed 77 people in attacks in Oslo and at an island summer camp in 2011. Though Norway ranks 14th worldwide in gun ownership, according to the Small Arms Survey, it placed near the bottom in gun homicide rates. (The U.S. rate is roughly 44 times higher.) Most Norwegian police, like the British, do not carry firearms.
In the wake of the tragedy, some analysts in the United States cited the rampage as proof that strict gun laws—which in Norway include requiring applicants to be at least 18 years of age, specify a “valid reason” for gun ownership, and obtain a government license—are ineffective. “Those who are willing to break the laws against murder do not care about the regulation of firearms, and will get a hold of weapons whether doing so is legal or not,” wrote Charles C. W. Cooke in National Review. Other gun control critics have argued that had other Norwegians, including the police, been armed, the gunman might have been stopped earlier and killed fewer victims.
After the massacre, an independent commission recommended tightening Norway’s gun restrictions in a number of ways, including prohibiting pistols and semiautomatic weapons, but changes were not made. In 2018, the Norwegian parliament approved a ban on semiautomatic firearms, which is expected to take effect in 2021.
Japan
Gun control advocates regularly cite Japan’s highly restrictive firearm regulations in tandem with its extraordinarily low gun homicide rate, which is among the lowest in the world at just one death in 2017, the latest year for which data is available. Most guns are illegal in the country and ownership rates, which are quite small, reflect this.
Under Japan’s firearm and sword law, the only guns permitted are shotguns, air guns, guns with specific research or industrial purposes, or those used for competitions. However, before access to these specialty weapons is granted, one must obtain formal instruction and pass a battery of written, mental, and drug tests and a rigorous background check. Furthermore, owners must inform the authorities of how their weapons and ammunition are stored and provide their firearms for annual inspection.
Some analysts link Japan’s aversion to firearms with its demilitarization in the aftermath of World War II. Others say that because the overall crime rate in the country is so low, most Japanese see no need for firearms.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-02-2022, 05:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2022, 06:13 PM by Eric the Green.)
(06-02-2022, 03:39 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: There are a lot of misunderstandings here I don't have the time to address, but I can do a few
1) "Turn the other cheek" means "don't make a big deal out of nothing" and "have the social grace not to turn small infractions into fights". He says turn the other cheek when you are slapped, not when someone attacks you with weapons. I'll give you an example: when I was in my apartment in Chicago a few years go, an older woman gave me lip because I didn't move out of the way fast enough. I could see she was clearly having a bad day, so instead of escalating, I simply smiled and moved on my way. The next day, she saw me again and apologized profusely for how rude she was. Her daughter was in the hospital after being attacked and was having trouble breathing, so again I smiled and simply said "apology accepted". We had several pleasant interactions from then until I moved a year or so later. There were many ruthless and well-justified wars fought in the Bible.
The Bible is full of violence, but the teachings of Jesus are turn the other cheek. He did not have guns for him to parse his words.
Quote:2) Frankly, "move to a safe neighborhood" is a "let them eat cake"-ism. Good luck to the bottom 30% trying to afford the necessary funds to move.
If you want to be safe, pay the bill and don't complain. Don't impose guns on poor neighborhoods that don't want them and are the chief victims of them.
Not everyone can pay to move, but it's a good move for those who can afford it, and it's mostly those folks who can afford to move who complain the loudest about gun control and threats to their guns and their second amendment. The Republican Party is overwhelmingly white, and defends the interests of the wealthy.
After the 1968 gun control law, which I myself participated in lobbying for, being a Kennedy fan, it was not the poor folks in the ghettoes who started the gun rights movement in response to the law and the riots; it was white people in the suburbs who flocked to gun stores, put bumper stickers on their cars in huge numbers saying "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", and started gun rights organizations and took over the NRA.
Quote:3) If "regulated" means "run by the state", that would make America a socialist country because we "regulate" various business activities. As these entities are still owned by shareholders, this is a faulty definition.
Regulation at least means the militia must submit to government regulations and supervision. Whom do you say "owns" these militia "businesses"?
A militia is not a business. It is an army. Since we have state armies, we don't any longer need the citizen militia, which was defined in the 2nd amendment as necessary for the security of a free State. The American Revolution ended in 1781-83. The 2nd amendment is a very-costly and deadly anachronism.
Quote:4) Most of these militias do not believe that situation currently exists. They believe that it has a material possibility some time in the future, and they want to be prepared when it does and, even better, act as potential deterrence, the same way we do with Mutually Assured Destruction concepts with regards to nuclear war.
Yes they do; they constantly say so. They proved it on January 6th, 2021. If you give up on democracy and law enforcement and want to depend on citizen militias to guarantee your freedom against the government, then we are no longer a republic of laws but a republic of men. If you want a free country, and seek to deter violence by the government, then the best thing to do is vote, and vote wisely. And contact your representatives and use people power.
Right now, it is the right-wingers upset by non-existent violence by Black Lives Matter and Antifa who want the police to crack down on them by violating their rights, which Trump has done. The domestic terrorism in the USA today is right-wing terrorism.
I admit, though, that if we are moving to civil war, then citizens will be arming for the fight. Gun control will be over; mayhem on the way. There could be a transition period in which rebels assemble an armory of sorts, like what happened in 1859-1860 in Dixie. If it happens, though, the rebels will need to soon establish a government like the Confederacy that also regulates behavior. And it will be a violent state. A national rule established by violence creates a state run by violence. The right-wing militias are already in this process.
When has a citizen army ever prevented a dictator from taking over the USA? I'd rather attribute this to our constitution than to our ammosexuality. Up until Donald Trump, losing candidates in a presidential election willingly stepped aside. Not at the point of a citizens' militia, but because of respect for the law and the democratic tradition. Indeed, Trump used citizens militias to defy the constitution and attempt a coup.
I believe it was the real "well-regulated militia," the National Guard and DC police, who finally stepped up and expelled the Trump rioters (the "militia" you favor) from the capitol.
Quote:5) Comparisons between high-gun and low-gun ownership countries is cherry picked at best. We could just as easily point to high gun ownership countries like New Zealand or Switzerland (mentioned in the video below)
The USA has 5% of the people and almost half the guns in the world. New Zealand was also mentioned in one of these reports (I thought it was this one, but I guess not) as having passed strict gun laws and bans on guns in the wake of its deadly mass shooting recently. The Swiss have far fewer guns than the USA has.
Quote:6) Also mentioned, people who resist intruders with a firearm are half as likely to be injured as those who offer no resistance
Is that a stat? I would think those who offer no resistance would not get shot. And remember the other defense measures.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
The Israel example is an interesting one. Yes, it seems a people engaged in actively occupying and oppressing another people needs to have a large army. Come to think of it, that's why we in the USA have the second amendment too; to keep the slaves in line; that's why it was added to the constitution! And it and our large army too still works for that purpose.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(06-02-2022, 05:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Israel example is an interesting one. Yes, it seems a people engaged in actively occupying and oppressing another people needs to have a large army. Come to think of it, that's why we in the USA have the second amendment too; to keep the slaves in line; that's why it was added to the constitution! And it and our large army too still works for that purpose.
literally the opposite. the KKK pushed for the first gun control laws.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-02-2022, 11:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2022, 11:39 PM by Eric the Green.)
(06-02-2022, 07:27 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (06-02-2022, 05:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Israel example is an interesting one. Yes, it seems a people engaged in actively occupying and oppressing another people needs to have a large army. Come to think of it, that's why we in the USA have the second amendment too; to keep the slaves in line; that's why it was added to the constitution! And it and our large army too still works for that purpose.
literally the opposite. the KKK pushed for the first gun control laws.
That does not change the fact that the second amendment was added to give slaveholders the ability to keep their slaves.
Fortunately African Americans made much more progress by adopting people power in the sixties, and this has continued. Their adoption by some of them of guns in the sixties did not work out so well. But at that same time, the various backlashes to progress began, and the gun rights movement, which had not yet existed, was a big part of that and still is. It's all of a piece. Gun rights, cries against critical race theory, laws against teaching about gays, promotion and full approval of domestic terror, the attacks on democracy and voting rights, full permission, approval and propagation of mass killings, attacks on women's rights.....
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-02-2022, 11:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2022, 11:52 PM by Eric the Green.)
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(06-02-2022, 11:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (06-02-2022, 07:27 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (06-02-2022, 05:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Israel example is an interesting one. Yes, it seems a people engaged in actively occupying and oppressing another people needs to have a large army. Come to think of it, that's why we in the USA have the second amendment too; to keep the slaves in line; that's why it was added to the constitution! And it and our large army too still works for that purpose.
literally the opposite. the KKK pushed for the first gun control laws.
That does not change the fact that the second amendment was added to give slaveholders the ability to keep their slaves.
What are you basing this off of?
Quote:Fortunately African Americans made much more progress by adopting people power in the sixties, and this has continued. Their adoption by some of them of guns in the sixties did not work out so well. But at that same time, the various backlashes to progress began, and the gun rights movement, which had not yet existed, was a big part of that and still is. It's all of a piece. Gun rights, cries against critical race theory, laws against teaching about gays, promotion and full approval of domestic terror, the attacks on democracy and voting rights, full permission, approval and propagation of mass killings, attacks on women's rights.....
Well, as of recently, black people seem to be quite bullish on owning guns, and in my experience at least, this is far from an unusual. After all, it only makes sense. What are they going to do? Rely on the police to protect them? We all know how poor their track record is even when we're not talking about the violent white supremacists who have infiltrated various police departments in the last few decades.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021...cans-surge
Quote:it seems a people engaged in actively occupying and oppressing another people needs to have a large army
Going back to this, yes....and the flip side is that people engaged in occupying and oppressing also want their victims to have less of an army and less weapons. Even Marxists are aware of this. Karl Marx was one of the biggest proponents of gun ownership of his time. Again, there is a reason America has never had a dictator.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-03-2022, 12:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2022, 12:34 PM by Eric the Green.)
(06-03-2022, 08:54 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: (06-02-2022, 11:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (06-02-2022, 07:27 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (06-02-2022, 05:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Israel example is an interesting one. Yes, it seems a people engaged in actively occupying and oppressing another people needs to have a large army. Come to think of it, that's why we in the USA have the second amendment too; to keep the slaves in line; that's why it was added to the constitution! And it and our large army too still works for that purpose.
literally the opposite. the KKK pushed for the first gun control laws.
That does not change the fact that the second amendment was added to give slaveholders the ability to keep their slaves.
What are you basing this off of?
many sources over the years. Here's one I just googled:
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/100210767...-amendment
Quote:Quote:Fortunately African Americans made much more progress by adopting people power in the sixties, and this has continued. Their adoption by some of them of guns in the sixties did not work out so well. But at that same time, the various backlashes to progress began, and the gun rights movement, which had not yet existed, was a big part of that and still is. It's all of a piece. Gun rights, cries against critical race theory, laws against teaching about gays, promotion and full approval of domestic terror, the attacks on democracy and voting rights, full permission, approval and propagation of mass killings, attacks on women's rights.....
Well, as of recently, black people seem to be quite bullish on owning guns, and in my experience at least, this is far from an unusual. After all, it only makes sense. What are they going to do? Rely on the police to protect them? We all know how poor their track record is even when we're not talking about the violent white supremacists who have infiltrated various police departments in the last few decades.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021...cans-surge
If some black people are bullish on owning guns, then they are wrong. Especially in neighborhoods where guns can be more-easily stolen. If we had real Democrats in office, police reform would be happening. We ought to be able to rely on the police, rather than depend on anarchy and citizen violence.
"About eight-in-ten Black adults (82%) say gun violence is a very big problem – by far the largest share of any racial or ethnic group. By comparison, about six-in-ten Hispanic adults (58%) and 39% of White adults view gun violence this way" Pew reports black ownership of guns is lower than that of whites.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...-and-guns/
Quote:Quote:it seems a people engaged in actively occupying and oppressing another people needs to have a large army
Going back to this, yes....and the flip side is that people engaged in occupying and oppressing also want their victims to have less of an army and less weapons. Even Marxists are aware of this. Karl Marx was one of the biggest proponents of gun ownership of his time. Again, there is a reason America has never had a dictator.
That depends on your definition of dictator. The USA has had continued slavery in all but name in many southern states, and racial profiling, red lining and discrimination in most states. Most people (including blacks, women, young people and poor people) not being allowed to vote until recently, and now efforts and supreme court decisions to restrict voting again, is not the definition of a free society. Arguably, Woodrow Wilson was a dictator and a racist during world war one. Lincoln and FDR did some questionable wartime restrictive measures. The Patriot Act, National Defense Acts and other policies put the USA on the path to dictatorship under W. Bush. Trump organized a coup and used his office to empower himself to cheat others. Guns did not prevent any of this. Citizens owning guns and weapons of war have nothing at all to do with whether our president is a dictator. You fail to make that connection historically. Arguments that dictators restrict gun ownership is often false, as the history of the Third Reich showed.
I agree with you this far, as I have said: I don't agree that juntas, dictators and thugs should have a monopoly on weapons, if people power does not work, which is the case today in a number of countries-- although the only alternative then is civil war/revolution and an alternative state, not anarchy and chaotic individual violence. But in the USA, those who want no restrictions on owning guns happen to be the thugs and would-be dictators themselves. Those who genuinely want more freedom and more justice in the USA, who are those on the left and not the right, have many means left to them yet that they can use to achieve political and social goals without forming armies or stockpiling weapons of war. People in many countries need to be careful that they don't vote themselves into dictatorship, which seems to be the case in Russia, Hungary, Turkey, The Phillipines, Nicaragua, Brazil, some African countries, arguably India, and possibly the USA.
Notice that even a militarized state oppressing another people like Israel strictly regulates citizen gun onwership. No country besides the United States of America holds this fantasy that individuals owning weapons of war without any restriction guarantees our freedom. And no other country suffers the inevitable results of this fantasy. And that's not the only fantasies that Americans hold these days, with also poor results.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
06-07-2022, 07:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-07-2022, 07:49 PM by JasonBlack.)
(06-03-2022, 12:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That depends on your definition of dictator. The USA has had continued slavery in all but name in many southern states, and racial profiling, red lining and discrimination in most states. Most people (including blacks, women, young people and poor people) not being allowed to vote until recently, and now efforts and supreme court decisions to restrict voting again, is not the definition of a free society. Arguably, Woodrow Wilson was a dictator and a racist during world war one. Lincoln and FDR did some questionable wartime restrictive measures. The Patriot Act, National Defense Acts and other policies put the USA on the path to dictatorship under W. Bush. Trump organized a coup and used his office to empower himself to cheat others. Guns did not prevent any of this. Citizens owning guns and weapons of war have nothing at all to do with whether our president is a dictator. You fail to make that connection historically. Arguments that dictators restrict gun ownership is often false, as the history of the Third Reich showed.
I agree with you this far, as I have said: I don't agree that juntas, dictators and thugs should have a monopoly on weapons, if people power does not work, which is the case today in a number of countries-- although the only alternative then is civil war/revolution and an alternative state, not anarchy and chaotic individual violence. But in the USA, those who want no restrictions on owning guns happen to be the thugs and would-be dictators themselves. Those who genuinely want more freedom and more justice in the USA, who are those on the left and not the right, have many means left to them yet that they can use to achieve political and social goals without forming armies or stockpiling weapons of war. People in many countries need to be careful that they don't vote themselves into dictatorship, which seems to be the case in Russia, Hungary, Turkey, The Phillipines, Nicaragua, Brazil, some African countries, arguably India, and possibly the USA.
Notice that even a militarized state oppressing another people like Israel strictly regulates citizen gun onwership. No country besides the United States of America holds this fantasy that individuals owning weapons of war without any restriction guarantees our freedom. And no other country suffers the inevitable results of this fantasy. And that's not the only fantasies that Americans hold these days, with also poor results.
My answer to this is quite simple: my definition of a dictator requires that they have the power and intention not to leave when voted out of office. Trump leaving after 4 years (and telling all the protestors to go home)? ....no, that's not a dictator. The only arguable case which could be made might be FDR, but he kicked the bucket in office, so we'll never know. Calling someone a dictator who voluntarily leaves when they're voted out is just...dramatic.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
06-07-2022, 11:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-07-2022, 11:32 PM by JasonBlack.)
Eric The Green
Quote:I'd rather attribute this to our constitution than to our ammosexuality
"ammosexuality". that's brilliant, that's going in my signature.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(06-07-2022, 07:46 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: My answer to this is quite simple: my definition of a dictator requires that they have the power and intention not to leave when voted out of office. Trump leaving after 4 years (and telling all the protestors to go home)? ....no, that's not a dictator. The only arguable case which could be made might be FDR, but he kicked the bucket in office, so we'll never know. Calling someone a dictator who voluntarily leaves when they're voted out is just...dramatic.
Trump had every intent of staying, but lacked the means. If elected again, he may correct for that lack, and the Constitutition be damned. On the other hand, I doubt FDR intended to stay beyond his fourth term, but, as you noted, we'll never know.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 683
Threads: 41
Joined: May 2016
(06-07-2022, 07:46 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (06-03-2022, 12:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That depends on your definition of dictator. The USA has had continued slavery in all but name in many southern states, and racial profiling, red lining and discrimination in most states. Most people (including blacks, women, young people and poor people) not being allowed to vote until recently, and now efforts and supreme court decisions to restrict voting again, is not the definition of a free society. Arguably, Woodrow Wilson was a dictator and a racist during world war one. Lincoln and FDR did some questionable wartime restrictive measures. The Patriot Act, National Defense Acts and other policies put the USA on the path to dictatorship under W. Bush. Trump organized a coup and used his office to empower himself to cheat others. Guns did not prevent any of this. Citizens owning guns and weapons of war have nothing at all to do with whether our president is a dictator. You fail to make that connection historically. Arguments that dictators restrict gun ownership is often false, as the history of the Third Reich showed.
I agree with you this far, as I have said: I don't agree that juntas, dictators and thugs should have a monopoly on weapons, if people power does not work, which is the case today in a number of countries-- although the only alternative then is civil war/revolution and an alternative state, not anarchy and chaotic individual violence. But in the USA, those who want no restrictions on owning guns happen to be the thugs and would-be dictators themselves. Those who genuinely want more freedom and more justice in the USA, who are those on the left and not the right, have many means left to them yet that they can use to achieve political and social goals without forming armies or stockpiling weapons of war. People in many countries need to be careful that they don't vote themselves into dictatorship, which seems to be the case in Russia, Hungary, Turkey, The Phillipines, Nicaragua, Brazil, some African countries, arguably India, and possibly the USA.
Notice that even a militarized state oppressing another people like Israel strictly regulates citizen gun onwership. No country besides the United States of America holds this fantasy that individuals owning weapons of war without any restriction guarantees our freedom. And no other country suffers the inevitable results of this fantasy. And that's not the only fantasies that Americans hold these days, with also poor results.
My answer to this is quite simple: my definition of a dictator requires that they have the power and intention not to leave when voted out of office. Trump leaving after 4 years (and telling all the protestors to go home)? ....no, that's not a dictator. The only arguable case which could be made might be FDR, but he kicked the bucket in office, so we'll never know. Calling someone a dictator who voluntarily leaves when they're voted out is just...dramatic.
FDR by almost any ranking of our Presidents, is consistently rated in the top tier. Yet he had to have had his distractors in order to have the Constitution amended six years later so there couldn't be any more Presidents able to accrue that level of longevity.
There are many states that now have similar term limits for state governor, and a few, mostly in the South, where the sitting governor can't succeed him/herself. The most well known case regarding this was with George Wallace in Alabama. He was unable via the state Constitution from running for a second term so he put his wife up for election. She won, but died of cancer shortly afterward, so in effect he still lost.
Posts: 683
Threads: 41
Joined: May 2016
(06-08-2022, 10:07 AM)David Horn Wrote: (06-07-2022, 07:46 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: My answer to this is quite simple: my definition of a dictator requires that they have the power and intention not to leave when voted out of office. Trump leaving after 4 years (and telling all the protestors to go home)? ....no, that's not a dictator. The only arguable case which could be made might be FDR, but he kicked the bucket in office, so we'll never know. Calling someone a dictator who voluntarily leaves when they're voted out is just...dramatic.
Trump had every intent of staying, but lacked the means. If elected again, he may correct for that lack, and the Constitutition be damned. On the other hand, I doubt FDR intended to stay beyond his fourth term, but, as you noted, we'll never know.
Am not anymore but I was born and raised Republican. When I was young the Democrats were often considered the bad guys because they were in control during both world wars as well as Korea and Vietnam. Perhaps Eisenhower's most significant accomplishment post-military was not only ending the war in Korea but keeping the country pretty much on an even keel during the eight years of his Presidency. The main distraction of the time was the first efforts to desegregate the schools, most notably in the South.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-09-2022, 12:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2022, 12:13 AM by Eric the Green.)
(06-08-2022, 05:40 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: (06-08-2022, 10:07 AM)David Horn Wrote: (06-07-2022, 07:46 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: My answer to this is quite simple: my definition of a dictator requires that they have the power and intention not to leave when voted out of office. Trump leaving after 4 years (and telling all the protestors to go home)? ....no, that's not a dictator. The only arguable case which could be made might be FDR, but he kicked the bucket in office, so we'll never know. Calling someone a dictator who voluntarily leaves when they're voted out is just...dramatic.
Trump had every intent of staying, but lacked the means. If elected again, he may correct for that lack, and the Constitutition be damned. On the other hand, I doubt FDR intended to stay beyond his fourth term, but, as you noted, we'll never know.
Am not anymore but I was born and raised Republican. When I was young the Democrats were often considered the bad guys because they were in control during both world wars as well as Korea and Vietnam. Perhaps Eisenhower's most significant accomplishment post-military was not only ending the war in Korea but keeping the country pretty much on an even keel during the eight years of his Presidency. The main distraction of the time was the first efforts to desegregate the schools, most notably in the South.
Eisenhower also appointed reactionary secretaries of state and the CIA leaders who secretly helped overthrow democratically-elected governments in Guatemala and Iran, and backed right wing tyrants in Vietnam in setting up South Vietnam which prepared the way for our worst-ever war. He set up the failed invasion of Cuba too for JFK to follow up on. He also appointed cabinet members who promoted capitalism at any cost, including the one who said what's good for General Motors is good for America. His efforts on civil rights did not go very far, and the "other America" of the black ghettoes expanded on his watch. His was basically a do-nothing administration. The cold war expanded and more nuclear weapons were produced on both sides during his reign. The Cold War revved up again after a brief lull when the U2 incident happened. America was beaten to space too. Ike is not as great as he is portrayed as being.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-09-2022, 12:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2022, 01:39 AM by Eric the Green.)
(06-07-2022, 07:46 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (06-03-2022, 12:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That depends on your definition of dictator. The USA has had continued slavery in all but name in many southern states, and racial profiling, red lining and discrimination in most states. Most people (including blacks, women, young people and poor people) not being allowed to vote until recently, and now efforts and supreme court decisions to restrict voting again, is not the definition of a free society. Arguably, Woodrow Wilson was a dictator and a racist during world war one. Lincoln and FDR did some questionable wartime restrictive measures. The Patriot Act, National Defense Acts and other policies put the USA on the path to dictatorship under W. Bush. Trump organized a coup and used his office to empower himself to cheat others. Guns did not prevent any of this. Citizens owning guns and weapons of war have nothing at all to do with whether our president is a dictator. You fail to make that connection historically. Arguments that dictators restrict gun ownership is often false, as the history of the Third Reich showed.
I agree with you this far, as I have said: I don't agree that juntas, dictators and thugs should have a monopoly on weapons, if people power does not work, which is the case today in a number of countries-- although the only alternative then is civil war/revolution and an alternative state, not anarchy and chaotic individual violence. But in the USA, those who want no restrictions on owning guns happen to be the thugs and would-be dictators themselves. Those who genuinely want more freedom and more justice in the USA, who are those on the left and not the right, have many means left to them yet that they can use to achieve political and social goals without forming armies or stockpiling weapons of war. People in many countries need to be careful that they don't vote themselves into dictatorship, which seems to be the case in Russia, Hungary, Turkey, The Phillipines, Nicaragua, Brazil, some African countries, arguably India, and possibly the USA.
Notice that even a militarized state oppressing another people like Israel strictly regulates citizen gun onwership. No country besides the United States of America holds this fantasy that individuals owning weapons of war without any restriction guarantees our freedom. And no other country suffers the inevitable results of this fantasy. And that's not the only fantasies that Americans hold these days, with also poor results.
My answer to this is quite simple: my definition of a dictator requires that they have the power and intention not to leave when voted out of office. Trump leaving after 4 years (and telling all the protestors to go home)? ....no, that's not a dictator. The only arguable case which could be made might be FDR, but he kicked the bucket in office, so we'll never know. Calling someone a dictator who voluntarily leaves when they're voted out is just...dramatic.
It's a neat slogan to avoid the fact that the USA has been a dictatorship for many, and in many ways, and to claim gun ownership had something to do with the tradition that presidents leave office when no longer elected or their term is up, which it had absolutely nothing to do with. And Trump definitely refused to leave office, but instead organized and staged a coup, and then let it go for 4 hours, and had already asked state leaders to find votes for him or legislators to change electoral votes, and is now organizing takeovers of election officials and secretaries of state who will do the same in 2024. He spread the BIG LIE that he won the election, which fomented the Jan 6 riot and now still foments efforts to restrict voting rights and change election results, which he and his lunatic, tyrannical, monster political Party are now pursuing. Trump is a would-be dictator, and the way he will be installed as such is to minimize and ignore the many ways he tried to be a dictator while in office, as you are doing, and ignore and thus approve of the ways he plans to install himself as dictator if he can cheat his way into the presidency again. Any support for Trump by those who rationalize gun ownership is full support for dictatorship in the USA. And it will be the phony militias composed of crazy gun owners whom Trump will use to enforce his will; an American gestapo and brown shirt army.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/woodwa...tol-attack
On the eve of the first public hearings on January 6, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein join us now.
And we welcome both of you back to the "NewsHour," Carl and Bob.
Bob Woodward, Co-Author, "All the President's Men": Thank you.
Judy Woodruff:
And, Bob, I want to start with you.
Carl Bernstein, Co-Author, "All the President's Men": Good to be with you.
Judy Woodruff:
Over the years — thank you both — there have been many narratives about what Watergate was about.
It has been called all about a third-rate burglary, that the cover-up was worse than the crime. You have had plenty of time to reflect on it. What was it about?
Bob Woodward:
Well, it was really an effort to destroy the process of nominating candidates for the Democratic Party, I mean, extraordinary.
Nixon came along and said, gee, I'd like to run against this person, George McGovern. And he launched a covert campaign of espionage and sabotage and cover-up. And it worked. In the end, he got a weaker candidate, George McGovern, and he won 49 states.
It was one of the great crimes of not just politics, but never seen anything like this, until recently.
Judy Woodruff:
Yes. And that's what I want to ask you about.
As we think back, though, to President Nixon, Carl, one of the just enduring memories was from the Senate hearings, the late Senator Sam Ervin, and in one of those hearings, that famous moment when we heard the actual audio recording from inside the White House.
Would Richard Nixon have been brought down if that hadn't happened?
Carl Bernstein:
It was the so-called smoking gun tape.
It's very possible he would not have been brought down. We don't know. It's if history. But it's very important to understand the progression from Richard Nixon's criminality to Donald Trump's criminality. They are both criminal presidents of the United States.
But then Trump went further. He is the first seditious president in our history. How did that happen? He decided he would not abide by the election, the duly constituted, free election of Joe Biden as the president of the United States, and staged a coup to keep Biden from taking office.
The law calls for the election of the president of the United States to take place at 1:00 p.m. on January 6. And there was a great effort, a conspiracy extending to the president, to keep that 1:00 p.m. appointment from happening. And the object of all of this, including the demonstrations and breaking into the Capitol of the United States by the insurrectionists, was to keep this election of the president from happening, so Trump could stay in office, and Biden could not.
But the idea of the president of the United States trying to stage a coup such as this is extraordinary, insidious, and we have never seen anything like it in our history.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-09-2022, 01:07 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2022, 01:12 AM by Eric the Green.)
Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward discusses the parallels between Richard Nixon and Donald Trump, which he writes about along with Carl Bernstein in a recent opinion column.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
07-05-2022, 03:42 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-05-2022, 04:54 AM by Eric the Green.)
July 4, 2022: not a day to celebrate the birth of the USA, but a date for prayer and protest, and for mourning over what this country has become, in so many ways. Its insane gun policies are just one of those ways. In Illinois, a mass shooting marred the day. The governor has some appropriate words. Shame, shame on the USA for perpetuating this plague!
https://youtu.be/bG_prCGBrcQ?t=119
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(06-01-2022, 04:48 PM)nguyenivy Wrote: (05-27-2022, 06:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: In my opinion, the firearms industry should be nationalized so that it can no longer offer blood money to those politicians who put campaign funds above human life. We also need a mandatory buy-back of all automatic and semi-automatic firearms even if such brings a profit to the seller.
Nationalisation of the firearms industry may also pave the way to look at other industries that adversely affected human life that are privatised (think of the Texas electrical grid in early 2021, for instance). In the UK they once had nationalised railways but once they were privatised service quality dropped while prices rose and services were cut in the name of profit. From what I understand the public there (except maybe the pro-Brexit people) at this point would be mostly for re-nationalising it. From our S&H viewpoint, isn't a 4T/1T era generally a time when the public would be more open to government playing a bigger role in our lives?
I'd exclude the hunting rifles. Sport hunters are well-behaved people, which I cannot say about people who own their own arsenals for protecting their drug trafficking or to sate their fantasies, including "race war". (As far as the neo-Nazis who want their "Racial Holy War" they can go to Hell with their models).
The legitimate sales of most weapons are to government agencies, especially to the police and military, and it is best that those weapons go only to those agencies. The not-so-legitimate sales to practically anyone who wants one of those killing machines is of course extremely suspect.
This is not a huge industry as are petroleum and motor vehicles, in case anyone thinks of socialist enterprise a viable means of stopping AGW, which will kill millions if unabated, especially if the life-threatening stresses such as famines and geographic dislocations (I expect there to still be hundreds of millions of peasant farmers sixty to eighty years rom now in time for the next Crisis Era, and many of those could find their livelihoods disappearing under the rising seas or under the sands of expanding deserts... while the food supply shrinks catastrophically for everyone else. Zero population growth is more critical and necessary than is rationing of energy and vehicle use. Buying out the weapons manufacturing would be far less expensive, and more an unmixed boon, than buying out the oil and vehicle businesses that have far greater cost to acquire.
Were I President of Venezuela I would contemplate selling Petroleos Venezolanos to support a social welfare system, much as former Socialist states with their nationalized industries. Marxist socialism may not be as valid a means of organizing an economy as is a social market state. Human happiness is an objective, and progress to some political ideal must be subordinate to that happiness. Venezuela is a miserable place to live under Chavez and Maduro. Markets force rational behavior, and rational behavior solves more problems than does government ownership and operation of the economy.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
07-12-2022, 10:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2022, 10:51 AM by Eric the Green.)
I made a post recently in which I mentioned American heroes. Here is a big one. She recently received the Medal of Freedom. And there's a new movie about her. Gabby Giffords.
|
