9 minute video on Brits and gun "control"

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

You are now in total agreement with Nancy Pelosi.

Except for the "purposefully kept to a minimum" part.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Christian Graus]

Precisely. None of this will happen, and it has no need to, Americans are already enslaved to their government, there's no need for a show of force. But, if it did, people would fold.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[JimmyRopes]

That is because they don't have acces to guns. ;P

Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes

[Mike Gaskey]

Stan Shannon wrote:

interesting

and I was trying to be funny. I bet there'd be a kerfluffle over my switchblade as well.

Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

[JimmyRopes]

Let's face it the UK is rapidly becoming a violent society. Even the Bobbies are carrying guns! Gone are the days of walking up to a criminal and saying come along old chap I am locking you up.

Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes

[Christian Graus]

Mike Gaskey wrote:

now whose f***ing decision should that be - some half baked jackass that is currently in power?

Well, someone with an ounce of common sense, I'd have hoped. Which the gun lobby severely lacks, it seems.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

bullsh*t, only if you bare your throat.

Oh, you can commit suicide if you like. But, it won't stop them, if your delusions ever actually played out in reality.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

garage those autos!

I'm sorry, I am surprised to find out that you're so stupid, because I don't usually think of you that way. Seriously.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

thnking, thinking, thinking - oh, I have it. It was called, ready for this, the Revolution.

Oh, OK. so, again, back when the weapons you had were actually capable of standing against the weapons of your oppressors ? This is my core point.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

right, the very reason there's constant pressure to overturn the 2nd Amendment or render it moot is bacause benevolent leaders want what is best for, drum roll, the children.

OK, so you're saying that both you and the government don't give a damn about gun deaths in the USA ?

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Christian Graus]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I mean organization of large portions of the available work force to achieve centrally planned goals defined by a collectivist government.

Even if that' organisation' is giving jobs to people who can't find work ?

Stan Shannon wrote:

I mean precisely what I said

I am trying to understand it tho.

Stan Shannon wrote:

To the greatest extent possible, infrastructue should be paid for with consumption taxes.

Sure, I agree.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Stan Shannon]

Christian Graus wrote:

Precisely. None of this will happen, and it has no need to, Americans are already enslaved to their government, there's no need for a show of force. But, if it did, people would fold.

First, I would be curious how you define 'enslaved'. I not sure I disagree, but I hardly see how the US would be that much different than Australia in that regard. Do you think we are more or less enslaved now that Obama and the democrats are in power? Second, no one believes that a rebellion comprised of civilians with small arms would pose much of a threat to the federal government. However, there are any number of scenarios that could well play out in which the federal government would be restrained in some way or not be fully in control of its military force. In those situations, an armed public could play a significant factor. The real problem, as I have pointed out in the past, is not the government's control of the military. Its greatest weapon is its abillity to control the distribution of food. Even in the 18th and 19th centruy, when some 90% of the population lived on farms and could grow their own food, there was a great deal of hunger and disruption of supply. It would be many orders of magnitude worse in a modern industrial society.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Christian Graus wrote:

on the basis of a threat that is entirely in your minds ?

That's what Octavius said, What Napolean said, What Cromwell said, etc.

Christian Graus wrote:

You have no means of resistance.

I already posited this for the sake of the argument. If I fight against tyranny, I will die. OK. But my question was, does that mean I shouldn't fight?

Christian Graus wrote:

cutting down the number of children who get needlessly shot every year is worth losing ground on something that is just a fantasy.

Well, according to the Australian, kids in Australia are twice as likely to get killed as kids in Britain, yet you both outlaw guns. Maybe there are other things in play here? For instance, in great swaths of the USA, child murder is virtually unknown, the problem is confined mainly to the big cities of the East and West coasts, and to the Southwest. 85 percent of U.S. counties did not have any child murders in the year I found statistics for (1997.) There is, unfortunately, an almost 1:1 correlation between centers of Hispanic population and child deaths (85% of child death in this country, by the way occurs, from fists, blunt objects, knives, etc. But presumably we'd want to end those deaths, too.) I'm not thrilled by saying that, but the figures are there. And they gibe with the violence levels attributed to a number of South and Central American countries.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

[Stan Shannon]

Christian Graus wrote:

Even if that' organisation' is giving jobs to people who can't find work ?

If that were indeed an absolute necessity to keep people from actual starvation and rampant homelessness. But the control of wealth needed to maintain such projtect inhibits the economic growth which would otherwise occur if that wealth were circualtiong freely in that same society, putting those same people to work in more productive endeavors not controlled by the government. The notion that government can be trusted with such power is entirely misplaced. The greatest imporatnce of free market capitalism is that it can function independently of the state. And the key factor in any free society is to keep government small so that it cannot control people's lives.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Except for the "purposefully kept to a minimum" part.

Nope, the menaing of minimum is not fixed. As Yoda said, pregnant there is and not pregnant there is. A little bit pregnant is what conservatives get when they go to Washington.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

[Christian Graus]

Oakman wrote:

That's what Octavius said, What Napolean said, What Cromwell said, etc.

Perhaps. But, I don't think you're right in considering their situations to be analagous. And you're ignoring the core issue. The US Army as bigger guns than you can hope to have.

Oakman wrote:

If I fight against tyranny, I will die. OK. But my question was, does that mean I shouldn't fight?

Not at all. But, you'll die if you own a hand gun or not.

Oakman wrote:

Well, according to the Australian, kids in Australia are twice as likely to get killed as kids in Britain, yet you both outlaw guns

Possible. I mean, guns are not the only way people die. The HUGE jump in homicides is between the US and countries that do work to keep guns out of the population.

Oakman wrote:

Maybe there are other things in play here?

Of course.

Oakman wrote:

For instance, in great swaths of the USA, child murder is virtually unknown, the problem is confined mainly to the big cities of the East and West coasts, and to the Southwest.

Yes. I am told there are more murders in the south than anywhere else, but if you take out revenge killings that the south is the safest place to be, for both property crime and murder.

Oakman wrote:

There is, unfortunately, an almost 1:1 correlation between centers of Hispanic population and child deaths (85% of child death in this country, by the way occurs, from fists, blunt objects, knives, etc. But presumably we'd want to end those deaths, too.) I'm not thrilled by saying that, but the figures are there. And they gibe with the violence levels attributed to a number of South and Central American countries.

I was more thinking of kids who find a gun and take it to school, those sorts of things. I am sure that's a small proportion of the number that makes the US the number one in homicide, I admit to choosing an emotionally charged example to make my point, but the core issue is, the US outstrips Australia and the UK on homicides by far more than 100%, per capita. And, you have guns. Coincidence ? I do agree with the point that Michael Moore makes in Bowling for Columbine. The US news culture is one of keeping people in a state of fear

[Christian Graus]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I not sure I disagree, but I hardly see how the US would be that much different than Australia in that regard.

In particular, the way that big business owns your government and can buy whatever they want, over the will of the people.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Do you think we are more or less enslaved now that Obama and the democrats are in power?

I met a workmate of my wife's yesterday and she told me how excited she is that Obama is in because he's such a good guy. My impressions of him are positive, but I am fascinated by people thinking they know someone as a result of a media campaign whose purpose was surely to manipulate ? I doubt Obama will change much, the figurehead changes, but the system rolls on.

Stan Shannon wrote:

However, there are any number of scenarios that could well play out in which the federal government would be restrained in some way or not be fully in control of its military force. In those situations, an armed public could play a significant factor.

Well, I think that getting a bunch of farm boys to go and shoot down american civilians is the biggest challenge that the goverment would face if it wanted to go that route.

Stan Shannon wrote:

The real problem, as I have pointed out in the past, is not the government's control of the military. Its greatest weapon is its abillity to control the distribution of food. Even in the 18th and 19th centruy, when some 90% of the population lived on farms and could grow their own food, there was a great deal of hunger and disruption of supply. It would be many orders of magnitude worse in a modern industrial society.

Yes, I agree. Food is a big issue, because so few people have any idea, or the means, to create their own. We could actually be self sufficient if we wanted to ( that is, my family ), something I value highly, although I don't share your concerns about government intervention, I do think food prices are going to be on the rise.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Nope, the menaing of minimum is not fixed. As Yoda said, pregnant there is and not pregnant there is. A little bit pregnant is what conservatives get when they go to Washington.

Well, I suppose. But all I am suggesting is that a government should use its power to tax very cautiously. There is no perfect solution to the issue of taxation. Regardless of how you do it, it will have some kind of negative impact on some sector of the economy. I think progressive income taxes are inhrently flawed simply because they give the governmetn too much power to control society by taxation in addition to whatever other affects they have on the economy. Flat taxation is a better alternative, but I think specifically targeted, temporary taxes, for unexpected needs or projects approved by congress will always be needed.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Christian Graus]

Oakman wrote:

Not true. Of English-speaking countries, South Africa takes first place; In the Americas, Colombia outshines us, world-wide, Thailand is so far beyond any other country as to not be in the same ball park.

OK, then it seems I am misinformed. Let me crawl under my rock and regroup.....

Oakman wrote:

ut, as the statistics from Washington, DC and New York City seem to show, when gun control is at its strongest, so is gun crime.

So there has to be some other cultural or environmental issue at play. The drop in gun ownership here did not cause any increase in crime or violence.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Christian Graus]

Stan Shannon wrote:

But the control of wealth needed to maintain such projtect inhibits the economic growth which would otherwise occur if that wealth were circualtiong freely in that same society, putting those same people to work in more productive endeavors not controlled by the government.

Probably. I'd see it as good only in a situation where credit is frozen, business is stagnating, and people are killing themselves and their kids b/c they lose their jobs. i.e. the situation we are in. But, I agree that it needs to be clearly managed as something that would segue into more traditional forms of work as the situation improves.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Stan Shannon]

Christian Graus wrote:

In particular, the way that big business owns your government and can buy whatever they want, over the will of the people.

I agree that is an issue, but I hardly see how it translates into being enslaved. As long as I am gainfully employed providing for my own needs, than I am free. The only definition of freedom is being able to care for one's own needs in one's own way. If business is conrolling government, the problem is with government, not business.

Christian Graus wrote:

Well, I think that getting a bunch of farm boys to go and shoot down american civilians is the biggest challenge that the goverment would face if it wanted to go that route.

I'm not sure I understand that.

Christian Graus wrote:

Yes, I agree. Food is a big issue, because so few people have any idea, or the means, to create their own. We could actually be self sufficient if we wanted to ( that is, my family ), something I value highly, although I don't share your concerns about government intervention, I do think food prices are going to be on the rise.

You wouldn't be self-sufficient for very long without a gun to protect your food from your hungry neighbors.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Christian Graus wrote:

Probably. I'd see it as good only in a situation where credit is frozen, business is stagnating, and people are killing themselves and their kids b/c they lose their jobs. i.e. the situation we are in.

I just don't trust modern liberalism with such power, however. Their entire hold on power is their ability to control the nation's wealth to buy off special interest groups. They are not doing this to get the economy back on its feet and help people, they are doing it to consolidate their hold on power.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[MrPlankton]

Scary. Thanks for the link.

MrPlankton

Mexican boy: Viene la tormenta! Sarah Connor: What did he just say? Gas Station Attendant: He said there's a storm coming Sarah Connor: [sighs] I know.

[MrPlankton]

Christian Graus wrote:

Again, this is ridiculous. You have no means of resistance

Australia is still considered part of the British Commonwealth. The US is not. The citizens of the colonies did not think armed "resistance was futile" against the Brittan… old habits die hard.

MrPlankton

Mexican boy: Viene la tormenta! Sarah Connor: What did he just say? Gas Station Attendant: He said there's a storm coming Sarah Connor: [sighs] I know.