Discussion in 'The Study' started by Bill Mattocks, Apr 20, 2012.
That's what happens when you are a subject and not a sovereign.
I love that quote
And I love how the words of a terrorist become canonised by the members of a nation who purports to be vigilantly anti-terrorist ...
... why would that be do you think? Could it be that the real history was a bit different than American schools teach? Or is that me being simplistic?
It's especially ironic when you consider that the 'non-violent resistance' (a cloak for self-serving power seeking hidden under a homespun cloak of false humility) that Ghandi promulgated was directly responsible, via the partition of India and Pakistan, for the present situation we have in Afghanistan.
By all means, accept that there is a correlation between control of a nation and the disarming of it's people but don't become confused between totalitarianism in the modern era and the necessities of empire in a previous century.
As Catholics get very upset when reminded of the bloody roots and actions of their faith, so do I when my country is falsely judged with a 21st century moral filter for actions that took place hundreds of years ago.
Maybe we can stick more closely to the actual topic of the thread?
The reason why I think this point is relevant to the discussion is because the act of disarming a population IS the very kind of action all empires eventually resort to. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that the British disarmed the Indians AND the people that live in the particular islands where the Empire started. The essence os empire is conformity and control and you can't do that, you can't erase the individual, when the citizenry are armed.
America's Founding Fathers never wanted to become, because they knew that was the surest and fastest way to lose your liberty. Now that we have become one, it doesn't surprise me that major pushes against the Constitution are being made. if anything, America needs to understand more about Imperial history across the world in order to understand how important the 2nd amendment is.
As I like to think of it, we can't have the 1st amendment without the 2nd. And all other amendments rest on that foundation.
The Founding Fathers never wanted us to become an empire...dang phone.
That is good, since we aren't and never have been.
This is why Americans need to learn history, Sukerkin. If we don't "get" this bit about empires, we're going to lose all of our rights...
Thought that was what you meant. The problem with the figures you quoted is that they were designed to pour s#1t all over the government. Also you selected half the article and ignored the Government explanation.
"Affray" is now regarded as violent crime in the UK and the definition has changed to include threatening to fight.
The US definition is quite different.
So basically we are comparing apples and coconuts.
If we want to look at real violence, let's look at homicides. (figures /100,000, 2004 figures)
South Africa 69
United States. 5.9
New Zealand. 1.5
United Kingdom. 1.4
For what it's worth, Australia and NZ have similar gun laws to the UK and I think most of Europe is also similar.
It's a bit more difficult to get figures for firearm related homicides but from:
United States. 4.14
New Zealand. 0.17
Now, the US has its gun laws and millions upon millions of guns and that's the right of US citizens. They obviously are keeping violent crime under control. God help us if you didn't have guns for all because then the figures would be really bad.
For us oppressed people throughout the rest of the civilised world, we must just hope that our benevolent leaders can manage to keep us safe without the need to create mass armories. Unfortunately we don't have the same rights as the citizens of the US and we just have to learn to live with that. But, you really can't use crime figures from elsewhere to justify gun ownership in the US because the figures just don't add up. :asian:
Really, because health figures from elsewhere were used in planning Obamacare...
Well maybe, just maybe, elsewhere might have something to look at. Crime figures involving guns are higher in the US than all other first world countries. If I had health problems and was unfortunate enough to be unemployed, I would much rather be in Austraia, New Zealand or the UK. We have social security that affords most people a decent standard of living. Personally, I hope I never have to rely on it but I have never begrudged putting in so that our society can be as equitable as possible.
I have worked hard and enjoyed a great life. I have no problem helping those who by no fault of their own are less fortunate. :asian:
Aye I suspect that to be true but the point being made, as I did earlier, is that the statistics for crime are not easy to compare in a straightforward fashion. The article promoting this discussion made correlations based upon grounds that were asserted but not really statistically 'proven'.
Like this dandy new law. American citizens can be arrested by our government, and held forever, without a trail or a right to legal counsel.
US Population:350 MILLION
UK Population: 62 MILLION
Australian Population: 22 MILLION
California Population:35 Million
When one of our states has a population larger than Australia and half as big as the UK's it is insane to believe that what works for Australia or the UK could possibly work for an population many times their sizes spread across an entire continent.
Whether we discuss health care or gun control.
Edited to add: That is without acknowledging the fact that gun control laws do jack **** to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons.
Gun control laws ONLY limit the law abiding.
It's you being simplistic, Mark :lol:-after all, if Britain had defeated "the colonies," back when we had our Revolution, our Founding Fathers could be called terrorists-heck, they still could, much like the modern state of Israel's founders.
Just to re-inject some history and culture; which like it or not, do affect current practicality, remember that the USA is historically a gun culture. Our history of gun control was begun on a bad note; not for the 'good of society' but to restrict certain classes and races from having guns.
Unlike most of Europe and Asia, the US has only fairly recently adopted ANY gun laws. The US was awash in guns from our creation. The first gun laws were basically 'Jim Crow' laws, intended to keep guns out of the hands of newly-freed former slaves. They didn't come from the federal government, but the states.
Interestingly, if you look at some sources, they ignore earlier gun laws completely and pretend that there were no such things.
Look at NPR's article:
They correctly point out that the first gun control laws on the federal level were enacted in 1934 (the National Firearm Act), but they ignore the post Civil War gun laws that limited the rights of former slaves to own guns.
But there are two important points here. First, given that the US didn't have any federal laws limiting gun purchases from our inception until 1934, and few after that until 1968, we have both a history of a 'gun culture' and our nation is awash in guns. They're everywhere, you can't get away from them. Any anti-gun law that would attempt to restrict gun ownership has to take into account that fact. How do you take away ALL the guns?
The second is that the very first anti-gun laws were based on attempts to control others by restricting or eliminating their right to even defend their own lives. Others have attempted to do likewise over the years, to meet their own agendas. Gun owners in the USA are aware of this and rightly suspicious of it. Attempts to pass gun laws still meet with scrutiny as to their motives, open and hidden. Many citizens who are just not gun fans are not willing to look deeper. If a politicians describes an anti-gun law as being aimed at public safety, that's good enough for them. They often look askance at gun owners who are suspicious of hidden agendas; but they do not understand the history of such laws and such blatant attempts to use gun laws to control people, not to ensure public safety.
:chuckles: As you know, I still do consider the Founding Fathers traitors and terrorists . Winning doesn't make you not a terrorist any more - Ghandi, Mandella, USA ... all the same to me. Maybe Ex-terrorist is something we need a political word for?
Aye, I have said so myself before now. I'm sure you recall that I agree with you when it comes to the futility and dangers of rash gun control law making.
I was only commenting as to the applicability of the statistics with regard to the political point being made. When you try to compare the stats for one thing to another thing, even if it seems similar, then the pit of political expediency in point making opens beneath the feet of the presenter and devalues their stance.
Here in the U.S.A. we do have a political word for it:
Australia and New Zealand aren't totally disarmed. The gun control laws are as severe as the Soviet Union or Saddam's Iraq, not even close. Therefore, the citizens have more freedoms. In the US, part of our political tradition is that we believe that firearm ownership is a check on government power. When we look out at the rest of the world and see more restrictions, it nearly always coincides with bigger government and less freedom. With the bottom of the barrel being total disarmament and totalitarianism. The path toward totalitarianism is convoluted, but it always passes through that phase.
What interests me about this discussion is whether or not there is a tight relationship between the amount of gun laws and civil liberties. Does having more restrictions result in less personal freedom? We know that total disarmament leads to totalitarianism, but does the slippery slope exist?
I agree, it's more complicated. The US has a number of factors other then gun ownership that contribute to its high crime rate.
Truth. The US has a dictatorship on paper, but something is holding back it's implementation. What could it be?123
Separate names with a comma.