Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[HapSmo19]

I see that, in Thailand, where the homicide rate is greater than the U.S., you have a problem with muslim insurgents(with assault weapons) murdering teachers in schools...and the Thai constitution is only five years old. Why would you retire to a deathtrap like that and, don't you think your time would be better spent whining about that?

[BigBallinStalin]

A classic example is the first 9/11,1973,when the USA played a significant role in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile,culminating in the murder of Salvador Allende and many others.As you say the examples go on and on...Maybe we just don't understand freedom and should be grateful one country has unique access to such knowledge..

Yeah, but Allende was a dick.

Chilean voters thought highly enough of him to elect him,a minor point I know..

Many dictators come to power through voting, so why do you hold elections with such high esteem?

[AndyDufresne]

A classic example is the first 9/11,1973,when the USA played a significant role in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile,culminating in the murder of Salvador Allende and many others.As you say the examples go on and on...Maybe we just don't understand freedom and should be grateful one country has unique access to such knowledge..

Yeah, but Allende was a dick.

Chilean voters thought highly enough of him to elect him,a minor point I know..

Many dictators come to power through voting, so why do you hold elections with such high esteem?

Didn't Hitler democratically finish high enough to be appointed Chancellor or something? I recall something like this from class in the past, but I could be misremembering completely.


--Andy

[crispybits]

Yep Hitler was democratically elected - most far right parties gain in power during times of economic trouble, and post WWI Germany was in massive economic trouble. Thankfully most don't have leaders of the charsma and leadership abiities of Adolf.

Once he got in he started changing laws around to make his hold on power more and more secure and started with the Orwellian style propaganda and we all know what happened next.

[Phatscotty]

okay fair enough. Let me just ask then what this means

"If such parochialism and disdain for the rest of the world are the results of your version of freedom then it does not impress me much at all."

because it sounds like what I said it sounded like

You could look up the words if you don't know what they mean,neither parochialism or disdain are synonomous with hate,and don't forget I said this applied to a lot of what is posted here by US citizens, NOT ALL.

disdain: a feeling of contempt for someone or something regarded as unworthy or inferior

yeah....that's exactly how I understood it. Sounds synonymous with hate to me, certainly past "dislike"

Well,it's hard to know how to respond to an inability to recognise clear differences in the meanings of words,of course you might also hate someone you disdain but you could also feel pity for them,or disregard or disrespect them in various ways. For example you might disdain an opponent on cc if you were contemptuous of their poor play which you regarded as inferior to yours without neccessarily hating them.

Either way, neither is an accurate description about myself. I care about other people around the world, but I don't go around bashing them with their statistics or yelling in their face about how they need to change.

We are off topic though, let's get back on!

[Phatscotty]

Yep Hitler was democratically elected - most far right parties gain in power during times of economic trouble, and post WWI Germany was in massive economic trouble. Thankfully most don't have leaders of the charsma and leadership abiities of Adolf.

Once he got in he started changing laws around to make his hold on power more and more secure and started with the Orwellian style propaganda and we all know what happened next.

What was so "far right" about the Nazis? Was it their gun confiscating activities? Or was it the Socialist tag in their name?

[crispybits]

Nazism (German: Nationalsozialismus; English long form National Socialism) was the ideology of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany. It is by some concidered as a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism, but of others concidered also to be a movement entirely bound to "the German blood" . Nazism used elements of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany. It was designed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism. Major elements of Nazism have been described as far-right, such as allowing domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society of people declared inferior which were said to be a threat to national survival.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Imagine politics as more of a circle than a line - far right and far left end up heading towards each other on a whole bunch of social issues (thankfully nobody has ever been enough of both that we found out what horror exists in the grey area between them)

[Phatscotty]

Nazism (German: Nationalsozialismus; English long form National Socialism) was the ideology of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany. It is by some concidered as a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism, but of others concidered also to be a movement entirely bound to "the German blood" . Nazism used elements of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany. It was designed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism. Major elements of Nazism have been described as far-right, such as allowing domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society of people declared inferior which were said to be a threat to national survival.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Imagine politics as more of a circle than a line - far right and far left end up heading towards each other (thankfully nobody has ever been enough of both that we found out what horror exists in the grey area between them)

Wiki? I have already seen what the problem with Wiki's defintion is in the past. It was the topic of discussion and a display piece for "wikipedia innacuracy"

btw, that whole "Racially superior" thing, it was not a far right idea. It was 100% a PROGRESSIVE idea....100%

[crispybits]

It's the easiest place to go to find information. OK how about I look beyond the first link on google:

Fascism
noun
[mass noun]

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices: this is yet another example of health fascism in action

The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach

Most important, we know Nazism was an ideology of the far right because of the very logic behind it. Unlike socialism, Nazism was a hierarchical, Socially Darwinistic vision that encouraged competition, and showed disdain for the masses, who Hitler called “mentally lazy.” Most crucially, it did not denigrate individualism, but in fact celebrated it. This is evident in Hitler’s major work, Mein Kampf.

I’m not simply referring to Hitler’s attacks on “Jewish” Marxism and Bolshevism, which he argued was a “comrade” to the equally Jewish “greedy finance capital.” Hitler believed that “the stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker.” Hitler extrapolated from individual achievement, “true genius,” to racial achievement. Indeed, to ignore racial hierarchy led to an “underestimation of the individual. For denial of the difference between the various races with regard to their general culture-creating forces must necessarily extend this greatest of all errors to the judgment of the individual.” Hitler celebrated the “free play of forces” that enabled both individual and racial advancement in Darwinian struggle. He loved sports, especially boxing, as they served “to make the individual strong, agile and bold.”

[Phatscotty]

so what is the gist of all that. Is is just that it's right wing because they thought they were superior? or because they were intolerant? Is there anything else that made them "right wing"? I understand he hated Jews and would have hated Israel if it had existed in his time.

I wonder how it came to be the left wing that hates Israel, and any Jew that doesn't agree with the Left Wing?

[crispybits]

OK talking in fundamental extreme terms:

Left wing social philosophies place the society at the forefront. Everyone has to follow what the society tells them to do and the rewards for success should be shared between all of the members of that society equally.

Right wing social philosophies place the individual at the forefront. Everyone has almost total freedom to act individually, and the rewards for success are reserved for the generators of that success.

Some right wing philosophies (national socialism) hold that by having a meritocratic society everyone benefits fairly according to their contribution, but that because individuals do not hold the level of information necessary to work for the optimal benefit of society, hard-line government controls are entirely consistent with general right wing philosophy. A great engineer, for example, might make a lot of money building anything from houses to churches to office blocks, but he can most benefit society (and still become rich) if he is building bridges and hospitals. It has left wing elements, but it's still basically right wing in that the individual gains the rewards from their own efforts. An engineer building a hospital in a strong and rich society will still personally gain more than an identical engineer building anything at all in a weak and poor society.

[crispybits]

There is a disclaimer to add to that though. Left and right work on both economic and social grounds. We tend to identify them more economically than socially, but it's possible (at least in one way) to be both left and right wing. Most modern democratic governments are slightly right wing but nominally centrist overall.

Economically, the left shares the money out, the right lets talented people get rich from their talents.

Socially, the left says the state is more important then the citizen and has control, the right says the citizen has priority and should be free from government control

If we abbreviate economically to E, and socially to S, and left and right to L and R and look at the furthest extremes:

EL-SL = communism
EL-SR = ?
ER-SL = fascism
ER-SR = anarchism

(I can't think of what the extreme ELSR position is called right now - will come back and edit when I remember the right term - I have a suspicion it's simply an inconsistent position because social freedom is very hard to attain without economic freedom)

[stahrgazer]

A legally elected government should have the right to require one to register some legally purchased items.Is this a one way street or do I get an answer to my question now Ive answered yours?

Nope, disagree.

They only have the right to attempt to legislate where/how those legally purchased items are used.

Medication might be an example you'd use, of the government requiring registration of legally purchased items. I'd counter that with: no. The only reason registration of your medication is required, is because abuse of them is considered illegal, and because "drug trafficking" is illegal even if the drug being trafficked is on the "legal to possess/take" list. So, the registration of the medications is simply attempting to keep doctors and pharmacies honest enough not to "drug traffic" and patients honest enough not to "drug shop" to take a legal substance in such excess that it becomes illegal.

In other words, 20 pills might be okay, but 200 is not.

With guns, 20 or 200 doesn't matter. What matters is if the gun is used in a crime. If it is, that gun is seized, the perpetrator is arrested - when found; and any other guns a suspected perpetrator has are also seized. But as long as a citizen stays law-abiding, the quantity of legally used arms does not matter.

I have no problem with that, I don't care how many guns someone chooses to collect. If the someone does something bad with one, he loses all.

[Phatscotty]

okay Crispy. Thanks

[BigBallinStalin]

A classic example is the first 9/11,1973,when the USA played a significant role in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile,culminating in the murder of Salvador Allende and many others.As you say the examples go on and on...Maybe we just don't understand freedom and should be grateful one country has unique access to such knowledge..

Yeah, but Allende was a dick.

Chilean voters thought highly enough of him to elect him,a minor point I know..

Many dictators come to power through voting, so why do you hold elections with such high esteem?

Didn't Hitler democratically finish high enough to be appointed Chancellor or something? I recall something like this from class in the past, but I could be misremembering completely.


--Andy

And that's why elections and voters' opinions matter more than whether or not Hitler or Allende was a dick, amirite?

[stahrgazer]

A classic example is the first 9/11,1973,when the USA played a significant role in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile,culminating in the murder of Salvador Allende and many others.As you say the examples go on and on...Maybe we just don't understand freedom and should be grateful one country has unique access to such knowledge..

Yeah, but Allende was a dick.

Chilean voters thought highly enough of him to elect him,a minor point I know..

Many dictators come to power through voting, so why do you hold elections with such high esteem?

Didn't Hitler democratically finish high enough to be appointed Chancellor or something? I recall something like this from class in the past, but I could be misremembering completely.


--Andy

And that's why elections and voters' opinions matter more than whether or not Hitler or Allende was a dick, amirite?

Yes, Hitler was as democratically elected as Allende.. and chang, the United States helping to overthrow dick-tators comes about precisely because the United States held back where Hitler was concerned, because "Hitler was democratically elected," and because at that time, the US had a policy to keep out of other nations' affairs. The U.S. was not planning to intervene because we had not been attacked. After Hitler's then-ally, Japan, attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. engaged. Japan first, then its ally, Hitler's Germany.

After that, partly because of Nato and partly because of "lessons learned," the U.S. stopped its "isolationist" policy. We realized that because the U.S. entered in nearly too late, Hitler almost succeeded and a lot more folks died than would have if we'd entered in sooner. We were one of three massive military powers in the world at that time, and as years went by, things occurred with the other two leaving the U.S. as pretty much the "only" strong military world power. And a fear of "the next Hitler."

So, our tendency to intervene against dictators since the 1940s isn't because we're arrogant, it's because we're afraid for our allies, for the innocent, and for ourselves... that if we don't intervene soon enough, the "next Hitler" will succeed where the German one failed.

You can dis us, disagree with us, and dislike our methods all you wish, chang, but when you do it, please do it for the "right" reasons, not your made-up ones. It's not "arrogance" that has us intervening, it's concern and fear.

We're not telling the rest of the world they should allow all their citizens to have arms, and we don't need the rest of the world telling US that we shouldn't allow OUR citizens to have arms.

When you can show me the country that has ZERO murders and not just zero legal guns, I might start to see your viewpoint that guns are the problem.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well... the US does support certain dictators, so the main reason why the US either maintains or disposes of a dictator doesn't really depend on that fear of appeasement as you've mentioned. It mostly hinges on the benefits to the US from the dictator. If the dictator wishes to play the United States' rules of the game, then generally they're allowed to maintain power (e.g. that King of Saudi Arabia, Pinochet of Chile, Shah of Iran 1953-1979). If not, then they typically don't last long (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Qadafi, Allende--allegedly, etc.).

The US simply wants to control the world in order to make it a more manageable and clearer affair. That's why the US spends around $500bn per year on 'defense'. Look at all of our joint counterinsurgency operations with South American and African countries--regardless of their political type. Look at which countries the US approves for weapons exports.

As for terrorism, that appeasement concern best describes US intentions, but that's a bit off-topic.

[Juan_Bottom]

GOD DAMN IT

HITLER WAS NEVER ELECTED TO ANY OFFICE

HE WAS APPOINTED CHANCELLOR IN 1933
HIS PARTY never gained much more than 35% of the vote

[stahrgazer]

Okay, Juan's right, he was appointed by those who were voted in.

Recruited by Hindenburg

In November 1932 elections the Nazis again failed to get a majority of seats in the Reichstag. Their share of the vote fell – from 230 seats to only 196. Hitler contemplated suicide. But then he was rescued by Hindenburg.

Franz von Papen (a friend of Hindenburg) was Chancellor, but he could not get enough support in the Reichstag. Hindenburg and von Papen were having to govern by emergency decree under Article 48 of the Constitution. They offered Hitler the post of vice-Chancellor if he promised to support them.

Hitler refused – he demanded to be made Chancellor. So Von Papen and Hindenburg took a risk. On 30 January 1933 Hindenburg made Hitler Chancellor. He thought he could control Hitler – how wrong he was.

In the end, Hitler did not TAKE power at all – he was given it.

The rest is still true.

Even our support for those who support us is our political way to try to prevent "the next Hitler" from succeeding where the last one failed. Alas, what happens is often a mimicry of how Hitler got there in the first place and then the US has to find someone else to back to take the would-be-dictators down. Vicious cycle, but it's still not "arrogance" it's "fear of the next Hitler succeeding."

[chang50]

I see that, in Thailand, where the homicide rate is greater than the U.S., you have a problem with muslim insurgents(with assault weapons) murdering teachers in schools...and the Thai constitution is only five years old. Why would you retire to a deathtrap like that and, don't you think your time would be better spent whining about that?

I am not defending any country,everywhere has problems.It's hardly my fault if most of the debate here revolves around one country.

[chang50]

A classic example is the first 9/11,1973,when the USA played a significant role in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile,culminating in the murder of Salvador Allende and many others.As you say the examples go on and on...Maybe we just don't understand freedom and should be grateful one country has unique access to such knowledge..

Yeah, but Allende was a dick.

Chilean voters thought highly enough of him to elect him,a minor point I know..

Many dictators come to power through voting, so why do you hold elections with such high esteem?

Maybe it's the least worst system we have devised,what would be a better alternative?

[Juan_Bottom]

A legally elected government should have the right to require one to register some legally purchased items.Is this a one way street or do I get an answer to my question now Ive answered yours?

Nope, disagree.

They only have the right to attempt to legislate where/how those legally purchased items are used.

Medication might be an example you'd use, of the government requiring registration of legally purchased items. I'd counter that with: no. The only reason registration of your medication is required, is because abuse of them is considered illegal, and because "drug trafficking" is illegal even if the drug being trafficked is on the "legal to possess/take" list. So, the registration of the medications is simply attempting to keep doctors and pharmacies honest enough not to "drug traffic" and patients honest enough not to "drug shop" to take a legal substance in such excess that it becomes illegal.

In other words, 20 pills might be okay, but 200 is not.

With guns, 20 or 200 doesn't matter. What matters is if the gun is used in a crime. If it is, that gun is seized, the perpetrator is arrested - when found; and any other guns a suspected perpetrator has are also seized. But as long as a citizen stays law-abiding, the quantity of legally used arms does not matter.

I have no problem with that, I don't care how many guns someone chooses to collect. If the someone does something bad with one, he loses all.

All guns used in crime come from a legal source. 40% of gun sales in this country are not required to be recorded by the seller for any government agency, and Gun Shows are now organized crime's #1 method of acquiring guns. That's where your drug traffickers get their guns.


Gun lovers are wholly irresponsible people. "We already have all these restrictions on freedom and blah blah blah" - Yet you encourage guns to be sold directly criminals while denying any sort of tracking system. The "Fast and Furious" debacle happened because our own agents can't stop you gun nuts from selling murder tools directly to the Mexican drug cartels. You've built and insulated a gun highway to the underground. So really, there are no restrictions.
You place laws only on the people who will follow them and then put no restrictions whatsoever on criminals. And you all blame those of us who want more gun safety for that somehow. It's the gun enthusiasts who are responsible for why these kids keep getting shot.
99.9% of guns are never used in a homicide. That must mean that 99.9% of all gun's owners are responsible... but how responsible can they be when they impede gun safety at every impasse? The gun enthusiast is responsible to make these sales and possessions safe. But they refuse. And the manufacturer's of guns are also fully aware that they are profiting from crime and homicide. But you insulate them as well. The price of American freedom - 5,000 dead children every year.

[Phatscotty]

Look at this guy lose it



And another interesting twist, related to paranoia about people who are assigned to protect us, look at this shit.

How long until a criminal notices this low hanging fruit

Police Chief Bans Officers From Denny’s After Manager Tells Detective to Leave Her Gun in the Car or Leave

Gun sensitivity is certainly on the rise. And if you needed an example, look no further than Belleville, Ill., where a battle is brewing between local police officers and a Denny’s Restaurant after an on-duty detective who went inside was told that she either had to leave her firearm in the car or exit the establishment. In addition to voicing outrage at the alleged treatment, the Belleville police chief has since banned officers from eating at the diner.

The drama unfolded on New Year’s Day when the detectives were eating at the Denny’s. The restaurant’s manager came over to tell a female in the group that she had to take her gun to the car or leave. Her request was purportedly based on a complaint from another customer. While, at first, the detectives assumed that the mandate was a joke, they quickly learned otherwise.

The manager explained the Denny’s only allows officers in uniform to carry guns, however the detectives had shown their badges, thus substantiating their identities. When they got up to leave, a general manager, who purportedly noticed the officers refusing to pay for their meals during the dispute, came over and told them that they could stay after all. But the damage was done.

The detectives, feeling embarrassed, decided to leave anyway. Belleville Police Capt. Don Sax condemned the employee’s treatment of the group in a statement to Fox News’ Todd Starnes.

“The Belleville Police Department is very disheartened by the lack of respect shown to on-duty sworn police officers,” he said. “Until further notice all on duty Belleville Police officers are banned from Denny’s Restaurant unless responding to an official call for service.”

To clear up the situation, a Denny’s spokesperson said that the manager making the initial request was wrong and that police in or out of uniform may carry weapons in the company’s restaurants. The spokesperson dismissed the incident as “miscommunication” and said that the manager was simply trying to do the right thing to address another customer’s complaints.

This pussy shit has got to stop people!!

[chang50]

Quote Starhgazer..

Yes, Hitler was as democratically elected as Allende.. and chang, the United States helping to overthrow dick-tators comes about precisely because the United States held back where Hitler was concerned, because "Hitler was democratically elected," and because at that time, the US had a policy to keep out of other nations' affairs. The U.S. was not planning to intervene because we had not been attacked. After Hitler's then-ally, Japan, attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. engaged. Japan first, then its ally, Hitler's Germany.

After that, partly because of Nato and partly because of "lessons learned," the U.S. stopped its "isolationist" policy. We realized that because the U.S. entered in nearly too late, Hitler almost succeeded and a lot more folks died than would have if we'd entered in sooner. We were one of three massive military powers in the world at that time, and as years went by, things occurred with the other two leaving the U.S. as pretty much the "only" strong military world power. And a fear of "the next Hitler."

So, our tendency to intervene against dictators since the 1940s isn't because we're arrogant, it's because we're afraid for our allies, for the innocent, and for ourselves... that if we don't intervene soon enough, the "next Hitler" will succeed where the German one failed.

You can dis us, disagree with us, and dislike our methods all you wish, chang, but when you do it, please do it for the "right" reasons, not your made-up ones. It's not "arrogance" that has us intervening, it's concern and fear.

We're not telling the rest of the world they should allow all their citizens to have arms, and we don't need the rest of the world telling US that we shouldn't allow OUR citizens to have arms.

When you can show me the country that has ZERO murders and not just zero legal guns, I might start to see your viewpoint that guns are the problem.[/quote]


You cannot be that naive,the US has propped up far more dictators than it has removed.The US is the self appointed bent policeman of the world.

[Phatscotty]

your bias is showing... We don't always control who leads every country. We have to figure out who we can work with, and who we can't. If we are going to try to live in your perfect world where we don't talk to anybody who does something wrong, then we are going to be talking to ourselves on repeat.

Let's get into it. Which dictators are you talking about?