woha, i went out of this thread because i did not expect it to be this civilized, guess i was wrong.
@NoState
no .. you just need to issue a new constitution, one which is appropriate for modern times.
besides, it might surprise you, but many of the things you say are actually the norm elsewhere. most countries do not use juries, for example. we don't have state rights, and we don't actually have "freedom of speech", as we assume everyone to be free to say whatever they want, but they have to take responsibility for it, so stuff like misinformation and slander are way out.
i'd also like to point out here that when it comes to governments, we might take things slowly and maybe enjoy a few kickbacks, but the level of corruption your own government has reached is something every Silvio Berlusconi of the world envies; at least we make lobbying illegal.
@artdeco'
look, im on your side, i also agree that the definition of assault weapon is idiotic. i also agree that people can still cause massacres without a weapon .. load a truck with gasoline and ram the place - boom - same amount of death.
also bad guys can get guns and ammo regardless. however, there are some differences.
i'm going to quote european similarities and differences.
if you were in europe, and you were a terrorist, you could still get a AK and ammo, normal people could not.
but you could not go around with it. you would much easily be spotted and arrested.
you would need strong criminal ties to buy such a weapon, and it would cost *much* more. preparation would be longer.
the loss of one such weapon would mean longer hiding time for the seller, more heat on him.
the weapon might not be of the quality desired by the shooter. there might be less ammo available, of lower quality. it might be harder to find extended magazines - or even just spare magazines - and these factors could delay the action or cause the offender to act under-prepared.
none of these are MAJOR differences, but they all contribute, and eventually these little changes is how we've made our continent safer.
let me say here and now -
i like guns.
i was even a subscriber to g&a for a few years, and i have always dreamed of owing guns. nothing would make me happier than to bag a 200pound wild hog with the cost of 1 bullet.
the things the left wants are actually not different than the things the very NRA wants; listen to ANY argument by gun owners (when talking about gun laws and gun safety) and they will tell you the same things over and over and over, and why? because those are the best arguments for gun ownership: discipline,
control, safety, responsible ownership.
they will go about how they keep guns unloaded, in safes, how they take their kids to the range. ANY youtube video with guns will forcibly contain the phrase "every gun is loaded" because that's the safety mantra.
that's the same stuff the left wants.
get any gun / range owner to talk when there's no issue of the 2nd being discussed, and they'll tell you that the last thing they want is to give a gun to a maniac, a person without any discipline, people who clearly look insane.
it's my understanding that in the US, the NRA has been a political platform on which many senators have been appointed,and thats why politics and the NRA are interested in each other - both are afraid to lose their relevance if the other does. the NRA is afraid to become once again "just an owner's club", and the various politicians are afraid they will no longer have a platform for debate to make themselves important.
i would love now to be able to say that the left & right could be closer, but i gotta say, your country is so divided ...
i am no fan of libertards, and i gotta agree, some of the stuff liberals come out with these days is truly, utterly retarded.
Furthermore, the constitution restricts the government, not the people. It tells the government what it can or cannot do. That is why there was such a debate about even the need to have a bill of rights, because my believed any definition of rights would cause future generation to restrict rights only those enumerated in the BoR. This was Jefferson (and others) huge problems. All rights are naturally imbued, so why define them?
this is right, but also idealistic. i think the problem was that the founding fathers were such cultured and farseeing gentlemen, they never though people would rush to abuse the laws they wrote.
realistically, the constitution doesn't work well with high density populations; it works perfectly when you have an open range, and both you and your neighbor are fighting against the elements for survival; because those are the situations that bring out fundamental cooperation between human beings, and develop the need to understand each other simply; but today the US is a collection of people whose ideals have nothing in common with down to earth living .. you just gotta google "people from walmart" to see for yourself.
i guess you are just not as conservative as you think you are.
Facebook
Twitter