I am one of the shrill, uneducated, shallow american right you are talking about. Born in Canada and saw gun control first hand. I believe your views are based on your upbringing which were similar to mine. When I got out of the socialist country of Canada and moved to the US I saw a completely different side of the coin, one only seen when you experience it. The Founding fathers knew that the gun was the great equalizer. A man with a gun may not be able to take down the US military but what you forgot to mention in your very well written post is that the US military is the shrill, uneducated, shallow american right that you scorn. A man armed with a gun can protect his family and property and that is the primary reason us americans fight you gun grabbers off.
I have already posted a reply to this just a few pages ago, you have clearly missed it. First it was the U.S that had more private gun ownership than any other country (not true anyway) now its been reduced to just a few. Make up your mind will you.
They are constitutions, nonetheless, and often contain language about rights just as does the US Constitution. The citizens of the USSR were "guaranteed by law" the right to assemble and freedom of speech. So much good that did them, eh? Relying on a piece of paper to be a bulwark of freedom. Those who want power over others, for whatever reason, will never put that paper ahead of their interests.
It is a point of reference, nothing more. The only defense against tyranny is a commitment to remain free. The Constitution reflects a commitment on the part of (some of) its authors to maintain freedom in their time, but those who come after must maintain the commitment. The document itself is just paper. It does not make anyone free, nor can it.
Seeing how our versions of history differ, perfhaps you can inform me as to what those conditions were that the founders felt justified in allowing the right to bear arms. The founders were not exactly anti religious. Some were christian, not very anti religious, Some were deist, thats not anti religious. Even the ones that werent religious are still quoted and sent letters regarding judaic/christian values as great and powerful civilizing forces. The last part of what you have written is a terrible and broad generalization. I am not religious, I, while lacking knowledge in scientific affairs, am by no means against it. And a brief review of my posts will demonstrate my consideration for such matters as climate change. You still have not responded to earlier posts, that while even though some were not directed specifically by quoting you, still aply to the discussion betweeen us. You speak about not getting a response, but then do not respond.
No, I live in the United States so I know simple stuff like this. I have been across the country and back again. No body has to tell me.
Sure they are. The Taliban gains more control every day and democracy there is falling apart. You mean, the majority of those who are enfrachised to vote and do vote. The majority does not necessarily prevail, particularly when a significant minority is operating under the influence of demagogues. Most revolutions aren't started by nor supported by the majority of the people. Not even the revolutions we see today have that sort of support. The American revolution was said to be instigated by no more than 5% of the people and supported by about 15% at the start. Strawman. I did not argue the army will not repress people who are kith and kin, but the resistance to it is far stronger than to repressing people in foreign nations with different religions and different skin colors. One way the state will protect itself from this effect is to station soldiers far from their own homes. It's a legitimate argument and your ad hominem is noted. The purposes of the implementation of compulsory government education in the US as stated by the advocates and founders of it were threefold. One, to create good government citizens of children, instilling in them a love of government and the state. Two, to impose a monocultural ideology that would displace the diversity of culture that existed in the 19th century. And, three, to reduce or eliminate the rising influence of Catholic education that was reaching poor children of all religious stripes. The Prussian (highly authoritarian) model of education was chosen as it was seen as the best way to train young people to be good workers in industry who would not question their superiors. The morality that is introduced to children in state education is that of the state is right, what laws are legislated determine right and wrong (DARE, anyone?) and each person is entitled to benefit from the efforts of others without their consent. If you can find any other reason why we have a government education system, please provide the evidence. It's an open challenge I've posted many times and none that I've challenged have been able to come up with anything. Were I to speculate, I think that you would argue that government education was implemented in order to educate the masses of poor and illiterate children. That would not be true in the US nor the UK. I disagree. Tyranny by legislation is all too evident in this country, where so many believe that right and wrong are determined by that legislation. It is true that we have relatively less tyranny in this country than many others, and that the system we have helps to stave off, but I would not call that a "great success" nor does that make the system the *right* system or the only one that should be followed. On the other hand, were the people of China armed, they may have overthrown tyranny. Instead, the government which drove over studenst with tanks and invented the allegations still rules. I am not actually for armed revolution. I prefer peace myself, in the vein of Gandhi or the notions of Tolstoy. However, the principles of liberty require that every human being be respected in their right to hold the means of self defense, including the defense tyranny. In Egypt, the army now rules. The people did not win. As for Saddam, the shredder story was a lie intended to outrage the world and incite war. It worked. Apparently if 50%+1 of the people vote to invade another country, or do so by proxy through their representatives, that makes war and invasion right. Even if the reasons for voting for war were not always true.
What?!? Are you paying attention? Now look,..... breath,....... focus. We have been discussing a post by 'ian" that was very reasoned and salient, and which you have taken umbrage to. You have even claimed to have "debunked" it, even though the hinge-pin of your argument appears to be something that does not even appear in his post ANYWHERE. Let's look at it again, because it's worthy of repeating: "Americans mistrust their own government, that much is plain. It shouldnt be so in a true democracy but I can understand why. Your democracy was hijacked decades ago by corrupt politicans in favour of corporate profits. The gun lobby, funded and manipulated by the corporations which make huge profits brainwashing children from birth that manhood depends on owning the biggest guns one of the most powerful lobbies in the US, if not the earth. The brainwashing is so complete that you cant understand a society that doesnt itself revere firearms and instead choose to deride the very people who reject your concept of slavery as slaves themselves. Turn your televisons off, walk outside and smell the air. Do what you want , not what a faceless corporation tells you. Thats freedom." Please point out for us where he said anything about how "freedom was invented"? There, you are fully caught up, AND fully "debunked". Nice try at a red herring diversion. It's pretty transparent though, given that I have given you a logical explanation as to why your claimed knowledge of what is on TV does not jive with the fact that you admit to not even watching TV. If this the method that you normally use to substantiate your arguments, then you might want to re-think that particular strategy. It's a loser........... Just sayin'.
You were doing well until your odd comment about our military and then further sliding down the abyss to making claims about protecting your family AND protecting your guns. I can only assume that you have been indoctrinated into irrational fears during your time here. Pity.
You're moving the goalposts now. You didn't originally say that the Constitution didn't "make anyone free". No, you actually said that "Democracy has never been a defense against tyranny. The bill of rights is paper, it has no authority." While I can appreciate your need for cynicism, I do believe that the we have over two hundred years of proof that our system HAS prevented "tyranny", and no amount of demagoguery will change this.
I see. You don't watch TV, and don't talk to anyone about TV, yet seem to know (by osmosis?) what is aired on it. Amazing little gift you have there, friend.
Im not talking about TV. You are the one who turned the focal point to television. The post was telling americans to turn off their TV's as if too much petty entertainment had dumbed them down. I do not know why you continue with the TV stuff. You misunderstood what the guy was saying, and then you took my counter as if I must not be fully aware of the 'brainwashing' by corporations because I dont watch TV. If thats true, why do I still promote gun ownership?
Thats definitely not the 'hinge pin' of my argument. I mentioned it sarcastically to say that this is the type of person you admire. It was not on this post and I never said it was, yes we have been discussing a particular post but I do not see how this has now become the 'hinge pin' when I have not mentioned it but once or twice in how many pages. The last is not a diversion but a very reasonable remark saying very simply that one does not have to actually be somewhere to know about something. When you talk about history were you there to see it all?
Felix (R)....Debateing and chit-chatting with Danct is like trying to match whit's with a parrakeet. There are those few that trive on having seeds thrown at them. And you will never get them to say something logical. Just jiberish.
Thank's for showing us what you and your partner look like having lunch together.....Just what I imagined. Hey Bozo...Don't blame Americans for your mistakes. Now next time, be polite, share some fries with your girlfriend.
You must try to defend what you say instead of this constant avoidance and red herrings. Look, YOU said: "There is not a higher degree of gun promotion than that which opposses guns."So, naturally I asked you how you would know this, being un-apprised of such a large part of our flow of information today (TV). You still have not been able to answer this and thus support your claim that I quoted above. Is this too hard for you?
OK, now you're starting to catch up. You now realize that you erred in stating that his post said something when it clearly did not. Even now you have abandoned what seemed to be the linchpin of your so-called "debunking", saying that it was not any more than "sarcasm". That leaves us with what exactly as the basis for what you called a debunking of the other member's post? I suspect that what you believed to be a debunking, was actually a figment of your imagination. History is recorded by historians and then relayed to those seeking knowledge in books and documentaries. Are you now claiming to have read a recorded history of how guns are represented on Television? Is THIS your new argument?
