USA Politics

Well, what is valid legally then? And how is asking 'why' NOT a valid question period? Legality and morality/reason should be compatible things, not exclusionary.
 
This goes back to all the discussion about the constitution. It says a "right to bear arms" not a "right to bear arms if we agree with why you want one"
 
Natalie said:
Well, what is valid legally then? And how is asking 'why' NOT a valid question period? Legality and morality/reason should be compatible things, not exclusionary.
Click to expand...

It's a pointless question. If asked "why," no one will actually say "to rob a liquor store," even if that's their true purpose. They'll say "protection" or "I like to shoot it recreationally at the gun range," each of which is perfectly valid. Unless it's your view that those are not valid reasons, but that's just your personal opinion, with which many intelligent people would disagree. Even if you think the only valid use is "hunting," then that's what people will say to get a gun.

bearfan said:
This goes back to all the discussion about the constitution. It says a "right to bear arms" not a "right to bear arms if we agree with why you want one"
Click to expand...

And this.
 
Forostar said:
I am honestly curious if and why people find a very old constitution more important than the hurt it causes.
That picture shows what "by law" the Americans find more dangerous. Call it propaganda as you wish, but everything can be get rid of, as long as it's not in the constitution.

You know what? This constitution is used as a fucking tool. Tools are not goals. Rules and laws should serve mankind in a positive way.
Click to expand...

Well, other than serving as a model for every liberal representative democracy in the world, I guess you're right, it's just a useless old tool that hasn't served mankind in any positive way.
 
See if you said: look, I don't personally agree with the constitutional right to own & use a gun (I actually think it's a bad thing), but the constitution is really damn important & this aspect of it isn't going to change, probably ever. I'd prefer to concentrate on what, practically, can be done right now --I'd have some respect for that. But you can't even bring yourself to say that. Presumably because you do, quite strongly, agree with the right of ordinary folks to own & use firearms --sighting the flimsiest of reasons why they might need to do so. And you are in total denial about the link between gun deaths in America & the massive gun ownership in your country. Either that, or you accept the link but, as Forostar said, find the constitution far more important. Why can't you disagree with one bit of your constitution? I just don't get it.

Cornfed Hick said:
One reason to permit widespread gun ownership is to deter that kind of thing. An armed populace is one that can more easily resist tyranny. That may seem like a quaint notion -- confronting a tank with a handgun -- but there are many people who own guns who think it makes them feel a little bit safer, not just from criminals, but from the state. I'm not one of those people (I don't own a gun), but I don't think they are all crazy.
Click to expand...

This would be funny if it wasn't so utterly depressing. You already have widespread gun ownership --didn't really deter the police, did it? As for people feeling safer, maybe you should challenge these nonsensical views. You don't own a gun: do you feel less safe than them?

I agree with most of what Forostar says.
 
As for every other "liberal democracy in the world" using your constitution as a model; I really think you need to get your facts straight there. Even if that were the case, you'll note nobody else (sensible) thought the whole "right to bear arms" bit was worth preserving.
 
This is the problem I have with the U.S. attitude to the Constitution. No doubt it is a highly valuable, insightful, powerful, important historical document that helped shape one of the most powerful nations in history. But just like other important documents that have shaped our world, i.e. the Quran or the Bible, it's a bit out-dated. And people are reluctant to fix/change the bits that are flat out irrelevant or just wrong. Which in a sense makes them obsolete. And that is unfortunate for those that adhere to those documents. The Constitution is not infallible. I get the sense people forget this.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
See if you said: look, I don't personally agree with the constitutional right to own & use a gun (I actually think it's a bad thing), but the constitution is really damn important & this aspect of it isn't going to change, probably ever. I'd prefer to concentrate on what, practically, can be done right now --I'd have some respect for that. But you can't even bring yourself to say that. Presumably because you do, quite strongly, agree with the right of ordinary folks to own & use firearms --sighting the flimsiest of reasons why they might need to do so. And you are in total denial about the link between gun deaths in America & the massive gun ownership in your country. Either that, or you accept the link but, as Forostar said, find the constitution far more important. Why can't you disagree with one bit of your constitution? I just don't get it.
Click to expand...


Honestly, That's a bullshit statement. Sorry, but true. You basically state that if someone doesn't agree with YOUR views, you have no respect. Sorry, I must discount your statements if that is the case.




I agree with most of what Forostar says.
Click to expand...

Shocking.
 
look, I don't personally agree with the constitutional right to own & use a gun (I actually think it's a bad thing), but the constitution is really damn important & this aspect of it isn't going to change, probably ever. I'd prefer to concentrate on what, practically, can be done right now
Click to expand...
The problem is I do not agree with that quote ... I think it is fine for law abiding citizens to own a gun if they want to ... but the rest of your statement is correct, it is not going to change any time soon and there are practical things that can be done now to crack down on illegal guns.

As for the Constitution, it has served the United States very well .. is everything in it or our laws perfect .. no (though that is the case everywhere), but I take no issue with abiding by it as in a relatively short period of time has provided the framework for the US to be a world economic, military, and cultural power while giving a large amount of rights to its citizens while having the most diverse population in the world.

I am not sure what purpose it will continue to discuss this .. some (it seems most non-Americans think Americans should not have the right to bear arms .. Americans think the opposite ... Obama included.
 
I was referring to those on this board, but in general I would suspect there are several things the US differs with Europe. We are a different country on a different continent that was founded based on the actions an armed civilian base/militia. For example, I find it incredibly odd (and a bit disgusting) that some liberal democracies ban political parties and/or fine people for their views or statements.
 
You can be proud too. America is enormously influential. It is of interest (& concern sometimes, as in this case) what America does in all sorts of respects. It matters; to me anyway.
 
Don't get me wrong, the United States is an incredibly fascinating place and I really love that sense of freedom you get there. But when someone once asked me what I would take with me from my experience there all I could think of was: "I have a whole new appreciation for my own country". I used to think that because it wasn't my country I really had no right to criticize it or disagree with its citizens on issues pertaining to it. But that's a silly and irresponsible attitude. Then again, you have to be open to criticism of your own country/beliefs/values if you want to have a productive discussion about it. Otherwise it quickly becomes completely entrenched and both sides sound condescending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top