Guns. Well said Mr President, if only your countrymen had the same courage to consider changing course.

by nicolaou 75 Replies latest social current

• 

  done4good

  England ruled the Americas with an iron fist. "Taxation without representation", etc, etc. They wanted the colonies to cough up all of their guns... in a fucking country (North America) comprised almost entirely of wilderness. The British required the colonists to house their soldiers in people's homes, effectively displacing the families. They ate their respective larders and did not replace in any way whatsoever, saying it was their 'duty' to put up and feed the British men they involuntarily were housing.

  It wasn't all quaint between the colonists and their rulers, and all "oh pardon us, but we'd rather have this place as our own country, thanks anyway". The colonies were a resource and a cash cow, with little regard as to what it actually took to survive. Let alone housing scads of extra people in your home, who broke your shit, ate all your stores, and walked away whilst effectively flipping you the bird as to how you and yours were to survive the dreadful winters here. It's not like walmart and mega-sized grocery/hardware stores existed back then.

  You just proved my point. Thank you very much.

  d4g
  
• 

  Gentledawn

  The original video I used to share got pulled down, but found another copy uploaded on to youtube.

  This is what it took to create a rifled barrel long gun way back in colonial times. The video is an hour long, but shows how much effort and resources it took to create a single rifle.

  Colonial Gunsmith: "Gunsmith of Williamsburg, with Wallace Gusler, Master Gunsmith"
  

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lui6uNPcRPA

  rifle = cut spirals inside the barrel, spins the projectile, giving better accuracy especially at long distances.
  smooth-bore = not rifling, not as accurate at long distances.
• 

  Simon

  The ridiculous number of guns that are around and the most dangerous, those poorly stored and secured, could be easily controlled without having to deal with the religious belief in the dogma of the outdated 2nd amendment.

  Make people liable.

  If your weapon is used to kill someone then the family of that person can sue the legal owner of it. So that person will lose everything or else they need some hefty insurance. Insurance will be cheaper if you have adequate safeguards on someone taking your weapon but won't pay out if it was just left in your purse.

  Unlucky, you lost your house. There's nothing in the 2nd amendment to prevent that.

  Make people have to get training to reduce their premiums but have to pay to have their guns. The number will be reduced and by targeting the poorly secured weapons it will help reduce those falling into the hands of criminals.

  Yes, it will take years for the number to come down. It can be helped by having an amnesty / buyback scheme (make the gun makers foot the bill by taxing them).

  But it needs to be a gradual reduction and the time ti start is now.

  Eventually the old weapons will seem like WWII relics compared to those around in 20 years time which will likely be biometrically controlled to add more protection.

  But to do anything needs politicians with some brains and some balls. I don't think you have those so we'll be having this same discussion in another few months.

  Alternatively, stop letting people get away with quoting part of the constitution out of context. Either they are part of a well regulated militia or they don't get to own a gun.

  Man up politicians. People - don't vote for anyone who supports the NRA. YOU be the ones to intimidate the politicians into doing what YOU want with the threat of lost votes.

  Do any 2nd amendment nuts actually think they can fight the government nowadays? They are mental. The government has tanks and drones and you are a gnat compared to that military. Of course they are not really known for their sound logical reasoning ability are they ...
• 

  Simon

  England ruled the Americas with an iron fist. "Taxation without representation", etc, etc. They wanted the colonies to cough up all of their guns... in a fucking country (North America) comprised almost entirely of wilderness. The British required the colonists to house their soldiers in people's homes, effectively displacing the families. They ate their respective larders and did not replace in any way whatsoever, saying it was their 'duty' to put up and feed the British men they involuntarily were housing.

  Well done for believing your own government peddled version of history.

  The "taxation without representation" is a catchy slogan but not what you imagine. It's up there with "hands up don't shoot".

  The reality was that the UK abolished the tax on it's tea which made it cheaper.

  The yocal landowners didn't like 3 things that made them rebel:

  • Competition of English tea (above).
  • Treaties with indians limiting expansion.
  • Abolishment of slavery as a legal enterprise

  None of those are "noble fights against tyranny" as many are indoctrinated to believe, The rebels were the tyrants.

  The other thing that makes me laugh is the border security shows where some American with an RV stuffed full of guns comes to the Canadian border.

  The look of incredulity on the border guards faces when they ask why the person needs that many guns and the guys says the "to protect my self and my family from the bad guys" is funny.

  Yes, if you are American it seems everyone is coming to get you. OoooOOoooh, bogey men !!!
• 

  _Morpheus

  "The ridiculous number of guns that are around and the most dangerous, those poorly stored and secured, could be easily controlled.....
  

  Make people liable.

  If your weapon is used to kill someone then the family of that person can sue the legal owner of it. So that person will lose everything or else they need some hefty insurance. Insurance will be cheaper if you have adequate safeguards on someone taking your weapon but won't pay out if it was just left in your purse."

  i have no problem with that idea at all.
• 

  Gentledawn

  The problem is that people (murderer) are not made liable in all these debates. Personal responsibility and all that comes with it.

  Insurance? The last thing we need is to pay yet another mandated tax that goes directly to private corporations.

  All life is valuable. The same people "tsk tsk"-ing at a civilian murderer for using a gun--- and then only blaming the GUN--- should also have to explain:

  
  - drone usage, murders
  - random police violence, including acquttals for outrageous wrongdoing (ex. flashbang grenade tossed into a child's crib? Good call, no charges for the cops)
  - "civil forfeiture", when cash is grabbed and "accused" of committing a crime, even when its owner (aka the person being robbed outright by police officers) is not.
  - citizens united, which gave corporations human rights. Now they can pour money into any campaign, effectively buying all politicians who accept it.

  From what I've read in the news today, the recent shooter was looping on drugs. True or false? And how much did that effect his judgment?

  "Suboxone is a drug used to treat opioid dependence. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, one side effect of the medicine is mood swings. It has been connected with sudden outbursts of aggression"

  And what about the NSA spy program? If it's there to "keep us safe", then why don't these shooters and bombers (Boston) ever get caught ahead of time?

  A lot of questions out there. Gun usage (and how the murderer came to be in possession of one) is only one of them.
  
• 

  done4good

  Simon - Yes, if you are American it seems everyone is coming to get you. OoooOOoooh, bogey men !!!

  Simon, with all due respect, please stop painting all of us with that broad of a brush. That doesn't reflect well on your site. And for what it's worth, while I may disagree with many of my fellow Americans on this issue, I do respect their reasons for disagreement. The gun lobby in this country is just another facet of a much bigger problem that cannot be solved by itself. The misinformation campaign in this country is largely controlled by a small plutocracy that is as old as at least the robber-baron era of the late 19th century. It will not be fixed by a discussion about guns in a vacuum.

  Until Americans take back their government from the money loving bastards that own it, nothing will change.
  

  d4g
  
• 

  gda

  this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries (what?)

  because they have guns
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  drone usage, murders - the war on Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with this debate, so you can drop this from your list.
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  Hey, Simon, I've never heard the story where England reduced taxes on its tea making it cheaper.

  Could you give us a little more info on that story?

  The US never grew tea as far as I know. Was it available from somewhere else as well that the American colonists preferred?

  Would love to hear more.