Why do Americans like guns so much?

I can't find a good answer. I don't know why the Swiss don't go bonkers and shoot little kids and folks in theatres...or anyone for that matter, except for one instance in 2001, there was a political shooting that killed 14. There are too many inconsistencies in the rhetoric regarding the Swiss to make a good concensus about things. Reportedly, ammunition in Switzerland is mostly kept in an arsenal since that assassination, but who knows?

I have found no answers and there probably isn't one.

 

In my opinion, a culture of militia service may do wonders for our republic.

 

My 'gun grabbing' point is that idiots and morons wandering around armed and who self diagnose as sane and responsible probably aren't so why should others be unwittingly forced to be near them.

Plus, the self centred whine that's emanating from the gunner camp is awesome!

"My rights! My rights!" they scream like drug-addled, spoiled, 14 year old banshees.

Catch them elsewhere, though, and watch them disrespect other people's rights endlessly. Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, gays, welfare recipients....yawn and yawn they drone.

Anyhow, the Swiss are civilised, not given to infantile behaviour, and don't scope out the local mall for potential murderers whilst shopping for adult diapers. A different class of gun owner entirely.

 

Is the president included in that group?

For someone who gripes about "self-diagnosis" you sure seem confident in your ability to diagnose others. That's just it, isn't it? Who gets to decide who gets to own a gun and who doesn't? I'll bet you "the decider" will decide that he gets to be well-armed.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder how high psychotropic drug use is among the Swiss.

 

It seems we're barking up the same tree. No doubt its not the only tree but these gun grabbers simply refuse to look up.

 

What is so difficult to understand about a profit motive, under any form of capitalism?

 

One would assume that the president's detail actually knows how to use a gun effectively.

Unlike the self diagnosed and armed who claim they're sane and responsible as though such a claim carries any weight or meaning.

Who gets to decide? People who are equipped and educated to pass judgement as to whether some redneck hillbilly yahoo is fit to wander around armed or not.

Competent people with expertise in psychological assessments.

A reasonable gun owner would be only too happy to subject themselves to such an assessment and be willing to carry the relevant paperwork to show it.

 

And WTF are these dummies supposed to be representing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dxTBK7jI1s
Majorettes with rifles, lol!

 

They represent dedication to country, not a ruling class, yet anyway.
The kind of dedication that had you boys paddlin back across the pond as fast as possible to mummie.

 

Shows you understood exactly, else you'd not need to try to deflect by pointing at someone else.

 

Look it up.

 

All it would take is the Sherman strategy, if we have to sort you out.

 

But in most countries no-one supports the villains having 'em, do they? Why are you nuts?

- - - Updated - - -

Just let 'em get pissed and shoot one another, then pick up the squalid pieces. What a load of fatuous drivel the gunmen's footling blather is!

 

We didn't have so many mass shootings when the economy was good, in fact there was a time when everyone was armed in the United States yet it had no gun violence.

American's like guns because it is a liberty that they can be responsible with, Canada and the Swiss all have guns and no gun violence. We have an oppressed culture suffering through a bad economy, and that does not mix well with guns.

 

Sorry. The area involved is such that the government could not stand.

 

As much as I love Lincoln, I wish he'd thought that way.

 

I think you're forgetting that people just like me live in the 'area'.

 

I wish he had pushed harder for eminent domain and avoided our Civil War altogether.

 

So what are you going to do pull your gun?

 

You'd still have a hell of an insurgency to deal with.

We invaded 2 countries last decade, and one of them still has a pretty annoying band of bandits.

 

And they don't have 100,000,000 entrench combatants to deal with either.

Also people assume the US military would attack the people. Liberal wet dream!

 

Self-defence is a concept which doesn't specifically require any weapons to be made out. Self-defence was the concept used after Katrina. The ownership of firearms is a part of the overall self-defence strategy. But so is boarding up windows and buttressing doors.

 

No, it just proves that Switzerland has better firearms control laws than many States in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems to have worked in Switzerland.

 

Invasion isn't the issue here, it's a domestically based military dealing with insurgency.

 

You reckon?

A series of insurgencies in various parts of the US would be seen as a threat to the US itself and would be treated as such by the military which would be bound to follow lawful orders to put down the insurrections. Just as federal LE agencies and police do their duty in spite of personal misgivings so would the military.

And think about it. If the insurgencies were successful - a pipedream of course - what would the US look like afterwards? I'd suggest the insurgencies would open the door to hostile forces, not necessarily organised national forces, to descend on the squabbling remains of what was once the US. It would make England's age of anarchy (Stephen v Matilda) look like a hippie convention.