Why do we, as citizens, really need guns?

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I guess that if you don't get the difference between a cupboard and a gun locker i really can't offer you any help understanding it, ask any kindergarten teacher to draw you a fucking picture and explain it to you.

Before you reply, try to READ and UNDERSTAND my previous replies. You obviusly didn't read nor understand them the first time so make a point of it to read until you comprehend.

Dense, are we? I already know the answer. I'm not asking because I need your help.

So, in your opinion, the only reasonable gun is one either locked in a locker/safe or under one's direct control, such as in a holster?

Is that what you meant to say? Or do you just like pulling ad hominem attacks out of your ass?

"what you meant to say"?

Word for word, that is EXACTLY what i wrote, word for word.

Great, I'm glad we made it through that.

Now, for the class, please explain how that is more reasonable, than say, a gun sitting in my sock drawer.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
No it isn't, you think your pea shooters are going to do SHIT against a tank? How about a chopper with rockets or a jet, how about haubitses that can self correct within four meters?

Oh the fucking irony. A brit underestimating American civilians. When has that happened before?

Oh yea, when you got your ass kicked by a bunch of peasants.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

In short, you don't need shit but your vote, same as any other democratic nation, this is just an excuse because tiny boys need their toys to feel safe from the boogeyman.

Says the guy in the Armed Forces :laugh:

You are so retarded that an answer will fall on deaf ears, the French saved your arses when it was rifles against rifles and cannons against cannons but what now? You're going to go up with the biggest caliber that you can own that might chaff the paint off a tank against a tank? Yeah, you're a REAL bright one, aren't you?

Well of course any nation needs it's armed force.

Anything more or are you done being an idiot for tonight?

I thought you were supposed to be billy badass military man? You sound like a defeatist pussy to me.

People with rifles don't attack tanks. They attack soft targets like people who refuel tanks or work in military factories.

You don't win wars by killing soldiers, you do it be destroying infrastructure.

How can you be military and not know that? Or maybe you're just another armchair internet general.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: nerp
Reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that many ATOT members are delusional paranoid whackjobs who watch too much TV and seen way too many movies. Where the fuck do you live that you need to worry about a home invasion? Your own stats you barf out about cars being more dangerous proves my point -- you're living in fear of a wholly unrealisitc view of the world. Home invasions rarely happen and most burglars don't carry weapons (being busted for B&E is easier to deal with than armed robbery) and are scared off and go running as soon as they hear a cough or th lights go on. Second, burglars tend to hit houses when you're on vacation or away. Thus, your trusty gun is more likely to be stolen during a break-in than actually used.

Where the hell do you all live? Kabul? Life must suck living in such a state of fear that you'd be willing to risk the lives of your family with a weapon in the house.

Except that it happens everywhere, everyday. Oh, and that it's not much of a risk at all...far lower than any number of other things people regularly do.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I guess that if you don't get the difference between a cupboard and a gun locker i really can't offer you any help understanding it, ask any kindergarten teacher to draw you a fucking picture and explain it to you.

Before you reply, try to READ and UNDERSTAND my previous replies. You obviusly didn't read nor understand them the first time so make a point of it to read until you comprehend.

Dense, are we? I already know the answer. I'm not asking because I need your help.

So, in your opinion, the only reasonable gun is one either locked in a locker/safe or under one's direct control, such as in a holster?

Is that what you meant to say? Or do you just like pulling ad hominem attacks out of your ass?

"what you meant to say"?

Word for word, that is EXACTLY what i wrote, word for word.

Great, I'm glad we made it through that.

Now, for the class, please explain how that is more reasonable, than say, a gun sitting in my sock drawer.

I already explained that too if you care to read my posts.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: Deeko
The problem with these threads isn't that its a never ending argument...it is....its that the majority of the pro gun crowd is a bunch of complete assholes when the subject comes up.

For the record, I am NOT anti gun. But the attitude of certain pro-gun people makes me want to be.

I'm just beginning to think that there are two (or more) USAs. The values that I grew up with in New York City are very, very different from the those of people in the mid-west, for example. I'm related, by marriage, to people from those parts of the USA and they just don't get me, and I just don't get them. Unfortunately, those people are facing the end of their world - factories are closing down, Walmarts are their entire economy.. I see how scared they are of the future, and they cling on to their old world ideals..

It's sad, and I feel like an east coast liberal/elitist for feeling so distant from their reality..But look at the states and cities with the most wealth, aren't they all more liberal as well (unless the wealth is tied with local natural resources)? I really am trying to empathize, because I love what this country stands for.. Just some of it seems so antiquated.

:roll: Those aren't values you jackass. You think you have the right to control other people's lives, which is typical with you "liberals." And yes you're an elitist and far from reality. You think your daddy and other New Yorkers amassed wealth through "liberal" ideas? Go fuck a goat.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Three points.

1. You would need the state of the art weapons, which at the time it was written was handguns and bolt action rifles and today they are everything from jets to haubitses to tanks to RPG's and so on and so forth, to be able to have the slightest chance against an army not on your side.
2. If the army is on your side, you don't need any weapon.
3. An illegal gun is nothing but a firearm you buy legally and file off the serial number off, that is what pretty much ALL illegal guns in the US are.

Remember the Finland school shooting? IF the dad had followed the law and kept his gun in his safe as he SHOULD HAVE instead of in the bedroom drawer, that would never have happened.

I don't mind people owning guns, i own quite a few myself but i DO mind that people keep them in their cabinets and bedroom drawers when they are not even in the room themeselves, THAT is irresponsible, if you have a permit to carry you keep it in a safe or on your person until you are close enough to put it down on an area where no one can grab it before you can.

Unfortunantly, VERY few gun owners are responsible gun owners.

I would NEVER leave a gun lying around without my personal supervision, not ANYWHERE, to do so is to be fucked up in the head.

I disagree with point 1. What we call terrorists are very successful (gorrilla warfare) at defeating much stronger forces though careful tactics. It is possible to do a lot with just bolt action or semi auto rifles. A few hundred pounds of fertilizer, some AR-15's and a group of dedicated men could hold off a much larger force for a long time.

Gorrilla warfare? They may be hairy but they are not gorillas you know.

I find it scary that a man who can't spell guerilla can own and carry a weapon.

I'd respond to the rest but i already did, you are just arguing around it, not against it.

A group of dedicated men would last 15 minutes just because of delayed impact.

Or 130 last we targeted a group compound in Pakistan.

Except that a government is not going to deploy such force on native soil in urban areas with significant civilian casualties unavoidable. Instead they'll deploy ground units, easily taken out one at a time from a few hundred yards with any hunting rifle. The cost to train and deploy more troops constantly would eventually destroy the nation...long before they crushed any serious revolution. To say nothing of dwindling public opinion, riots, loss of revenue, etc.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
No it isn't, you think your pea shooters are going to do SHIT against a tank? How about a chopper with rockets or a jet, how about haubitses that can self correct within four meters?

Oh the fucking irony. A brit underestimating American civilians. When has that happened before?

Oh yea, when you got your ass kicked by a bunch of peasants.

You know, it is actually possible to argue with someone without insulting their country, like a normal person in real life... not that an insult against the British Empire, an unsavoury and now extinct entity, should be an insult to any of us, but we do tend to be proud of the fact no foriegn army has set foot on this island since 1066. I think that counts as 'aint nobody kicks our ass' or something along those lines. Besides there were American peasants on both sides in the Revolutionary War. And even then the peasants didn't win anything - the conflict included most of the major European powers and the French especially made all the difference.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: JS80
You think you have the right to control other people's lives, which is typical with you "liberals."

Errr... that is the opposite of liberalism...

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JS80
You think you have the right to control other people's lives, which is typical with you "liberals."

Errr... that is the opposite of liberalism...

Liberalism, yes. But not modern day liberals.

Just like how modern day "conservatives" are not really conservative in the classical sense.

 

[OCGuy]

Europeans arguing over American constitutional rights.


I've seen it all...

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Three points.

1. You would need the state of the art weapons, which at the time it was written was handguns and bolt action rifles and today they are everything from jets to haubitses to tanks to RPG's and so on and so forth, to be able to have the slightest chance against an army not on your side.
2. If the army is on your side, you don't need any weapon.
3. An illegal gun is nothing but a firearm you buy legally and file off the serial number off, that is what pretty much ALL illegal guns in the US are.

Remember the Finland school shooting? IF the dad had followed the law and kept his gun in his safe as he SHOULD HAVE instead of in the bedroom drawer, that would never have happened.

I don't mind people owning guns, i own quite a few myself but i DO mind that people keep them in their cabinets and bedroom drawers when they are not even in the room themeselves, THAT is irresponsible, if you have a permit to carry you keep it in a safe or on your person until you are close enough to put it down on an area where no one can grab it before you can.

Unfortunantly, VERY few gun owners are responsible gun owners.

I would NEVER leave a gun lying around without my personal supervision, not ANYWHERE, to do so is to be fucked up in the head.

I disagree with point 1. What we call terrorists are very successful (gorrilla warfare) at defeating much stronger forces though careful tactics. It is possible to do a lot with just bolt action or semi auto rifles. A few hundred pounds of fertilizer, some AR-15's and a group of dedicated men could hold off a much larger force for a long time.

I also find almost everyone I know who owns firearms to be very responsible. Everyone I know has a safe, everyone I know uses that safe. Everyone I know has gone though training, and has the proper license to carry. Everyone I know would never hand you a loaded gun, would never pick up a gun without checking if it was loaded, and would never leave a gun sitting around.

I wear my weapon at all times. I only take it off for work (I work at a college and it freaks out students), and at home where I place it in a drawer by my bed. If I am leaving and not taking it with me, then it goes in my safe. If children are coming over, it goes in my safe. All of my ammo is in a second safe (except the loaded mag in my pistol) and I have no loaded weapons beyond my carry in the house.

He's British, he has an english accent so he thinks he's smart and enlightened.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: ducci
It comes down to whether or not you think an armed population is more dangerous than an unarmed one.

No, it does not come down to that. Safety is such a small part of the equation that's it's nearly negligible. The issue is almost completely about government power.

Once you decide that X should be allowed since it makes us safer, there's nothing the government cannot do. Case and point, the Patriot Act and all the government wire-tapping.

No it isn't, you think your pea shooters are going to do SHIT against a tank? How about a chopper with rockets or a jet, how about haubitses that can self correct within four meters?

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with government power and if you think you nutters could wage guerilla warfare against your own government supported by the armed forces you're daft, that would be THEIR arses on the line and not just soldiers in far away lands, they wouldn't pull any stops on that one and once the first one hits and everyone realises that this is war, everyone will calm the fuck down and lay down their weapons, well almost everyone, you included.

If the armed forces ARE on your side, you won't need guns at all.

In short, you don't need shit but your vote, same as any other democratic nation, this is just an excuse because tiny boys need their toys to feel safe from the boogeyman.

Again, not going to be deployed very often. When they are, there are ways. Barrett against the chopper, or black market aa. Not terribly effective, but for a $5000 investment you get a chance to knock down a $10,000,000 aircraft. Economic attrition is a guerrilla's ally.

Tanks are tougher, but also far less likely to be deployed domestically. And there are still methods of damaging them enough to make them not cost effective. Information on doing so is freely available on the internet, and the required materials are easily obtained anywhere in America.

Regardless of what they'll eventually climb into, a well placed hunting rifle shot kills the operator whenever he goes to or from his vehicle. Each time you do that, the loss to the military in trained personnel is significant, while the cost to the revolution even if the shooter is taken out is very low.

Remember the ENORMOUS number of military personnel who would either support the revolution, or at least refuse to fight their own citizens.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
No it isn't, you think your pea shooters are going to do SHIT against a tank? How about a chopper with rockets or a jet, how about haubitses that can self correct within four meters?

Oh the fucking irony. A brit underestimating American civilians. When has that happened before?

Oh yea, when you got your ass kicked by a bunch of peasants.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

In short, you don't need shit but your vote, same as any other democratic nation, this is just an excuse because tiny boys need their toys to feel safe from the boogeyman.

Says the guy in the Armed Forces :laugh:

You are so retarded that an answer will fall on deaf ears, the French saved your arses when it was rifles against rifles and cannons against cannons but what now? You're going to go up with the biggest caliber that you can own that might chaff the paint off a tank against a tank? Yeah, you're a REAL bright one, aren't you?

Well of course any nation needs it's armed force.

Anything more or are you done being an idiot for tonight?

I thought you were supposed to be billy badass military man? You sound like a defeatist pussy to me.

People with rifles don't attack tanks. They attack soft targets like people who refuel tanks or work in military factories.

You don't win wars by killing soldiers, you do it be destroying infrastructure.

How can you be military and not know that? Or maybe you're just another armchair internet general.

No, actually you don't, you call for us and we fix it for you.

It's our job to take out the tanks on ground.

You might be a tough SOB and along with about 30k you wouldn't surrender immideatly but the rest would, there is a HUGE difference because the ones we're fighting believe that death is their salvation.

Try to get a Catholic in the US to become a suicide bomber or a driver for a suicide mission (which is what will happen when you hit the one filling the tank and he blows you sky high with a couple of 40MM's).

You don't have the faintest clue about warfare, that much is clear.

And yeah, i'm a real badarse, son, but i'm not daft.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Europeans arguing over American constitutional rights.


I've seen it all...

lol, sorry, didn't realize there was something wrong with that. I guess men shouldn't talk about womens' rights, or adults talk about the rights of children. And of course when we write books we should just describe what we see out our own window.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Europeans arguing over American constitutional rights.


I've seen it all...

lol, sorry, didn't realize there was something wrong with that. I guess men shouldn't talk about womens' rights, or adults talk about the rights of children. And of course when we write books we should just describe what we see out our own window.

Oh you can do it all you want, but nobody takes you seriously.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JS80
You think you have the right to control other people's lives, which is typical with you "liberals."

Errr... that is the opposite of liberalism...

Liberalism, yes. But not modern day liberals.

Just like how modern day "conservatives" are not really conservative in the classical sense.

I guess it's different in the states where socialist is a bit of a dirty word. Over here the more 'nanny state' lefties openly and proudly call themselves socialist, and mostly join the labour party, with the liberal party a seperate entity. Or that's how it should be anyway - I don't see how the lib dems reconcile their love of personal freedom with their tax raising proposals.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: ducci
It comes down to whether or not you think an armed population is more dangerous than an unarmed one.

No, it does not come down to that. Safety is such a small part of the equation that's it's nearly negligible. The issue is almost completely about government power.

Once you decide that X should be allowed since it makes us safer, there's nothing the government cannot do. Case and point, the Patriot Act and all the government wire-tapping.

No it isn't, you think your pea shooters are going to do SHIT against a tank? How about a chopper with rockets or a jet, how about haubitses that can self correct within four meters?

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with government power and if you think you nutters could wage guerilla warfare against your own government supported by the armed forces you're daft, that would be THEIR arses on the line and not just soldiers in far away lands, they wouldn't pull any stops on that one and once the first one hits and everyone realises that this is war, everyone will calm the fuck down and lay down their weapons, well almost everyone, you included.

If the armed forces ARE on your side, you won't need guns at all.

In short, you don't need shit but your vote, same as any other democratic nation, this is just an excuse because tiny boys need their toys to feel safe from the boogeyman.

Again, not going to be deployed very often. When they are, there are ways. Barrett against the chopper, or black market aa. Not terribly effective, but for a $5000 investment you get a chance to knock down a $10,000,000 aircraft. Economic attrition is a guerrilla's ally.

Tanks are tougher, but also far less likely to be deployed domestically. And there are still methods of damaging them enough to make them not cost effective. Information on doing so is freely available on the internet, and the required materials are easily obtained anywhere in America.

Remember the ENORMOUS number of military personnel who would either support the revolution, or at least refuse to fight their own citizens.

Ya, and that is a reason for you to own a gun?

Of course there are improvised shit, try mixing iodine and ammonia, wait for it to dry and you have a land mine, dig it down and add a couple of bags of high nitrogen content fertilizer and you can blow up any tank and half a neighbourhood.

So WHAT, none of it is legal and none of it has anything to do with legally owned guns.

And tanks would be deployed if the army was with the government against the poeple, EVERYTHING would be deployed, take a glance of how it has worked in EVERY SINGLE military staged coup in the world.

Chances are the military would take command and you'd be worse off, at least that is how it has worked the last 150 times around in almost as many nations.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Europeans arguing over American constitutional rights.


I've seen it all...

lol, sorry, didn't realize there was something wrong with that. I guess men shouldn't talk about womens' rights, or adults talk about the rights of children. And of course when we write books we should just describe what we see out our own window.

Oh you can do it all you want, but nobody takes you seriously.

I find that very sad. I am personally open to people's opinion no matter their country of origin, the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation.

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Guns are perhaps the last margin of control the populace has over the gov't

B-I-N-G-O!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JS80
You think you have the right to control other people's lives, which is typical with you "liberals."

Errr... that is the opposite of liberalism...

Liberalism, yes. But not modern day liberals.

Just like how modern day "conservatives" are not really conservative in the classical sense.

I guess it's different in the states where socialist is a bit of a dirty word. Over here the more 'nanny state' lefties openly and proudly call themselves socialist, and mostly join the labour party, with the liberal party a seperate entity. Or that's how it should be anyway - I don't see how the lib dems reconcile their love of personal freedom with their tax raising proposals.

It's probably the difference between the US and our political system, over their they are either Communists or Fascists if you listen to the opponents of either side... lol.

Must be pretty fucking hard to vote for one of those.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Europeans arguing over American constitutional rights.


I've seen it all...

lol, sorry, didn't realize there was something wrong with that. I guess men shouldn't talk about womens' rights, or adults talk about the rights of children. And of course when we write books we should just describe what we see out our own window.

Oh you can do it all you want, but nobody takes you seriously.

I find that very sad. I am personally open to people's opinion no matter their country of origin, the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation.

The opinions of people who grew up in a different culture, country, and continent are irrelevant. That is why we fought a war to eliminate an out-of-touch government "across the pond". This is also why "States rights" gained so much traction.

Applying exactly the same laws in DC and Alaska does not make sense. Strong local governments are the way to go.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Europeans arguing over American constitutional rights.


I've seen it all...

lol, sorry, didn't realize there was something wrong with that. I guess men shouldn't talk about womens' rights, or adults talk about the rights of children. And of course when we write books we should just describe what we see out our own window.

Oh you can do it all you want, but nobody takes you seriously.

I find that very sad. I am personally open to people's opinion no matter their country of origin, the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation.

The opinions of people who grew up in a different culture, country, and continent are irrelevant. That is why we fought a war to eliminate an out-of-touch government "across the pond". This is also why "States rights" gained so much traction.

Applying exactly the same laws in DC and Alaska does not make sense. Strong local governments are the way to go.

As far as I know the US has a very large number of citizens that grew up in a different culture, country, and continent. So you just ignore all immigrants as well?

KT

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: JS80
You think you have the right to control other people's lives, which is typical with you "liberals."

IIRC, don't you fall right in line with the far right wing version of controlling other people's lives? (Drug prohibition, anti-homosexuality, etc)

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: ducci
It comes down to whether or not you think an armed population is more dangerous than an unarmed one.

No, it does not come down to that. Safety is such a small part of the equation that's it's nearly negligible. The issue is almost completely about government power.

Once you decide that X should be allowed since it makes us safer, there's nothing the government cannot do. Case and point, the Patriot Act and all the government wire-tapping.

No it isn't, you think your pea shooters are going to do SHIT against a tank? How about a chopper with rockets or a jet, how about haubitses that can self correct within four meters?

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with government power and if you think you nutters could wage guerilla warfare against your own government supported by the armed forces you're daft, that would be THEIR arses on the line and not just soldiers in far away lands, they wouldn't pull any stops on that one and once the first one hits and everyone realises that this is war, everyone will calm the fuck down and lay down their weapons, well almost everyone, you included.

If the armed forces ARE on your side, you won't need guns at all.

In short, you don't need shit but your vote, same as any other democratic nation, this is just an excuse because tiny boys need their toys to feel safe from the boogeyman.

Again, not going to be deployed very often. When they are, there are ways. Barrett against the chopper, or black market aa. Not terribly effective, but for a $5000 investment you get a chance to knock down a $10,000,000 aircraft. Economic attrition is a guerrilla's ally.

Tanks are tougher, but also far less likely to be deployed domestically. And there are still methods of damaging them enough to make them not cost effective. Information on doing so is freely available on the internet, and the required materials are easily obtained anywhere in America.

Remember the ENORMOUS number of military personnel who would either support the revolution, or at least refuse to fight their own citizens.

Ya, and that is a reason for you to own a gun?

Of course there are improvised shit, try mixing iodine and ammonia, wait for it to dry and you have a land mine, dig it down and add a couple of bags of high nitrogen content fertilizer and you can blow up any tank and half a neighbourhood.

So WHAT, none of it is legal and none of it has anything to do with legally owned guns.

And tanks would be deployed if the army was with the government against the poeple, EVERYTHING would be deployed, take a glance of how it has worked in EVERY SINGLE military staged coup in the world.

Chances are the military would take command and you'd be worse off, at least that is how it has worked the last 150 times around in almost as many nations.

The idea of government resistance isn't merely about revolution, though that does exist. The bigger picture is that when any politician thinks to implement a law, or establish a policy, he/she is forced to consider the consequences of that action. In America there is a VERY real chance that if you do something that angers some of the citizens, at least one of them is going to commit an act of violence with a deadly weapon. Quite possibly directed against said politician. This forces (or rather should force) careful consideration of every act, and in general limit the number of laws and policies implemented. It's a form of check/balance...it's intended to reign in government.

The use of a firearm (as an anti-government tool) is to procure more and better weapons and equipment, and to remove targets of opportunity.

In a large enough revolution yes, whatever was left of the military (not much) would likely be deployed in force. But at that point the country has already been lost totally, so it's moot. Before that point, when 25,000 freedom fighters are waging a guerrilla war such deployments would not occur because of the public opinion turn it would cause. Americans wouldn't stand for it, and every bit of added force from the government would turn that many more people against them. Rather than risk that they'd be far more likely to retreat and play protectionist...keeping themselves (the politicians) safe while they acted from on high.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

As far as I know the US has a very large number of citizens that grew up in a different culture, country, and continent. So you just ignore all immigrants as well?

KT

Last time I checked, in order to vote, you have to be a US Citizen. This means you were either born here, or went through a process to gain this citizenship. This includes learning US History, and you probably lived here during that process as well.