America - The Official Thread

[prisonermonkeys]

And the rest of the world isn't the U.S. so I fail to see why anyone here should care about how foreign countries view our domestic policies.

Because it makes you look like a nation of crazed sociopaths who placed a disproportionate value in the ownership of deadly weapons and are jealously guarding that ownership despite the piles of innocent victims senselessly gunned down.

 

[Northstar]

Because it makes you look like a nation of crazed sociopaths who placed a disproportionate value in the ownership of deadly weapons and are jealously guarding that ownership despite the piles of innocent victims senselessly gunned down.

Than I guess they are the truly ignorant ones for eating what the media gives them instead of researching and trying to see how things actually are here.

I will say that we have a mental health problem that needs addressing because from the way it sounds, Dylann Roof wanted to kill as many black people as he could, the gun was just the easiest method. Chances are if he couldn't get a gun there would have been a church bombing instead of a shooting.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Than I guess they are the truly ignorant ones for eating what the media gives them instead of researching and trying to see how things actually are here.

Oh, we can see "how things actually are". Sandy Hook gave everyone a pretty good idea of that.

 

[Exorcet]

Because it makes you look like a nation of crazed sociopaths who placed a disproportionate value in the ownership of deadly weapons and are jealously guarding that ownership despite the piles of innocent victims senselessly gunned down.

I'd rather the people willing to kill be dealt with than have guns taken away and the actual problems forgotten.

 

[LeMansAid]

Because it makes you look like a nation of crazed sociopaths who placed a disproportionate value in the ownership of deadly weapons and are jealously guarding that ownership despite the piles of innocent victims senselessly gunned down.

Granted, there's people that will essentially say "Hey I'm a libertarian, let me prove it by showing you all my guns.", but condemning the concept based on the actions and attitudes of a few is equal to a blanket condemnation of Islam in the face of a few rogues. Something you appear to stoutly fight against.

Gotta ask though...... Did you even know what a libertarian was, when you described yourself as one?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Granted, there's people that will essentially say "Hey I'm a libertarian, let me prove it by showing you all my guns.", but condemning the concept based on the actions and attitudes of a few is equal to a blanket condemnation of Islam in the face of a few rogues. Something you appear to stoutly fight against.

Why are you only seeing this in absolute terms - that either everyone can have guns, or no-one can - when I said nothing of the sort?

 

[LeMansAid]

Why are you only seeing this in absolute terms - that either everyone can have guns, or no-one can - when I said nothing of the sort?

You extrapolated it to "nation of", not me.

 

[Northstar]

Oh, we can see "how things actually are". Sandy Hook gave everyone a pretty good idea of that.

You mean the one where the guy had to kill his mom just to get a hold of the guns because he couldn't buy one?

It's very sad that it happened, but in both Sandy Hook and now Charleston people are looking in the wrong direction. Instead of wanting more gun laws that likely wouldn't have stopped either attack they should be crying for a massive redoing of the mental health system as that's what really needs working on.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And if they were isolated incidents, maybe you would have a point. But they're not. They happen frequently, and no other country experiences that kind of massacre. It's a huge assumption on your part to suggest that gun control laws would gave done nothing to prevent the massacres, since you have no evidence of it.

 

[Northstar]

and no other country experiences that kind of massacre.

How far back are we going?

By the way, guess where the deadliest shooting in recent history was? I'll give you a hint, it's nowhere near the U.S.

It's a huge assumption on your part to suggest that gun control laws would gave done nothing to prevent the massacres, since you have no evidence of it.

You're right when it comes to the one in Charleston, all I have to go on is Roof's comment that he wanted to kill a bunch of black people.

Sandy Hook on the other hand is a case of a man managing to get a gun he had no legal right to have. Gun control only works when the shooter attempts to buy it through legal channels, they aren't very effective when the shooter says screw it and just steals it from someone that does have one legally.

What I fail to understand, is that all these cases, and I will admit there are more here than elsewhere, is that every-time one happens it seems the person is always mentally unstable and nobody ever discusses it. Hell, even you seem to be ignoring this part as it's the second time I've brought it up and you still haven't said anything about it.

 

[A2K78]

All I can say is that mass shootings like this demonstrate the sheer idiocity of gun-free areas.....to further add if this kid couldn't get a gun, he sure would've found another means to ensure mass casualties. Oklahoma City anyone??

 

[Dotini]

Perhaps we'd all be better off if all children of American Rifle Association members received training and carried 9mm Glocks to school asa a standardized practice? If all parents joined, all schools would instantly become safe again.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Perhaps we'd all be better off if all children of American Rifle Association members received training and carried 9mm Glocks to school asa a standardized practice?

As a school teacher, I can tell you that that is a completely ridiculous idea. They may receive the training, but they do not have the capacity to recognise a situation where one would be required, and expecting them to handle the stress of such a situation is completely unreasonable.

And all it would take is one student inappropriately handling a weapon to prove just how insane the idea is.

 

[Dotini]

As a school teacher, I can tell you that that is a completely ridiculous idea. They may receive the training, but they do not have the capacity to recognise a situation where one would be required, and expecting them to handle the stress of such a situation is completely unreasonable.

And all it would take is one student inappropriately handling a weapon to prove just how insane the idea is.

Yes, but just imagine the exultation, pride and glee of parents when the kids, in a righteous crossfire, bring down them terrorists, druggies and pedophiles!

 

[Exorcet]

As a school teacher, I can tell you that that is a completely ridiculous idea. They may receive the training, but they do not have the capacity to recognise a situation where one would be required, and expecting them to handle the stress of such a situation is completely unreasonable.

And all it would take is one student inappropriately handling a weapon to prove just how insane the idea is.

Weapon handling isn't beyond children, they have successfully defended themselves with weapons before. However it would be foolish to just give them out in a school given that some of them won't be able to use them responsibly. It would be easier to arm teachers or security and there's no real loss of effect unless the school is invaded by a small army.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Weapon handling isn't beyond children, they have successfully defended themselves with weapons before.

This isn't aimed directly at you, Exorcet, more at the argument. I find it incredible that this argument is repeated as often as the argument that stick-shift is too difficult (and therefore unsafe) for teenagers.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This isn't aimed directly at you, Exorcet, more at the argument. I find it incredible that this argument is repeated as often as the argument that stick-shift is too difficult (and therefore unsafe) for teenagers.

And there is an extraordinary difference between handling a weapon under carefully controlled conditions and the real world with its chaotic variables. The law recognises the capacity of individuals to make decisions and appreciate the consequences of their actions in advance of carrying them out. The idea that a child could responsibly handle a weapon while under pressure when the law recognises that they do not have the capacity to smoke, drink, drive or vote is completely insane.

 

[Exorcet]

stick-shift is too difficult (and therefore unsafe) for teenagers.

I don't agree with that as a blanket statement either.

And there is an extraordinary difference between handling a weapon under carefully controlled conditions and the real world with its chaotic variables.

What I said applies to both, and in particular I was referring to successful cases of the latter.

The law recognises the capacity of individuals to make decisions and appreciate the consequences of their actions in advance of carrying them out. The idea that a child could responsibly handle a weapon while under pressure when the law recognises that they do not have the capacity to smoke, drink, drive or vote is completely insane.

The law applies a best fit to everyone and is wrong on individual cases. This is understandable given the diversity in individuals and is why haphazardly arming the student population is a bad idea.

 

[GTsail]

South Carolina Governor - Nikki Haley -- calls for the removal of the Confederate flag from the grounds of the SC state capital:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sc...g-will-defy-race-hatred/ar-AAbVz18?li=AAbNzob

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/la...ows-15-years-of-refusal/ar-AAbZgSN?li=AAbNzob

Well done Nikki Haley:tup:

IMO, this was long overdue. The Confederate flag was raised over the SC capitol in the 1960's as an official protest to the civil rights movement.

It will be interesting to see if the SC legislature is able to find the super-majority that is necessary to remove the flag.

GTsail

 

[GTPorsche]

The Confederate flag removals are 150 years overdue.

 

[FoolKiller]

If only you knew just how crazy the defence of the Second Amendment sounds to the rest of the world.

If you think what I said sounds crazy, then please explain how addressing ingrained hatred and racism will result in meaningful change on gun policy?

Did the guns cause it? I know of similarly minded guys who prefer dragging their targets behind their truck or go hunting them in their truck in order to run them over.

A change in gun policy does nothing to address why these people kill. If you are too worried with how then you are missing the real problem.

Fact is, people with this kind of hate have been finding ways to commit mass murder of black people for over 60 years.

 

[Omnis]

IMO, this was long overdue. The Confederate flag was raised over the SC capitol in the 1960's as an official protest to the civil rights movement.

It will be interesting to see if the SC legislature is able to find the super-majority that is necessary to remove the flag.

GTsail

Re: the confederate flag:

You know, I think there is merit to flying the flag in the spirit and memory of the freedom to secede. But, let's face it: when has there ever been an initiative to oppose the growth and scope of the federal government by any of these states? What state doesn't suck from the gubmint teat these days? Considering that, it is a joke that the stars and bars fly above their capitols. Any noble meaning that flag had has long since died and been trampled many times over by racists and their misplaced pride. There is no "heritage" left-- only insecurity. Look away... Pick up a new flag.

 

[FoolKiller]

We currently have a similar debate going on in Kentucky.

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...oval-jefferson-davis-statue-capitol/29168623/

A statue of Jefferson Davis is in the capital rotunda and there is a sudden movement to have it removed. The rotunda features statues of multiple Kentuckians of historical note, but apparently the nation now is that Jefferson Davis' presence sullies the ideas of these statues, and goes directly against the statue of Lincoln, whose statue is the centerpiece of the rotunda.

This goes back to my fear that we are trying to white wash history. Was Davis from Kentucky? Yes. Was he president of the confederacy? Yes. Can that be interpreted to mean that he supported slavery? Yes. Does removing the statue change the fact that a Kentuckian held the highest office of the confederacy? No.

The real question becomes, if we remove this statue do we go on to refuse to acknowledge Davis in any way? Will we rewrite history by just never mentioning it again?

Right now, the most popular idea is to move the statue to the Kentucky History Center, but I wonder how long it will stay there before it is removed.

I remember as a kid touring the capital and having the statues of Davis and Lincoln allowed the tour guide to discuss the opposing leaders during the war and the issues that divided them. It seems like a loss of an educational opportunity.

At the same time, Davis was only born in Kentucky and his role during the war did not represent Kentucky in anyway.

 

[LeMansAid]

It's interesting that in an age where there's almost an obsession with having not only flawed characters, but flawed heroes, in film and television, there's the concurrent desperation to banish all that is historically fraught.

It's like there's the assumption that current and future generations are going to revel in the complex nature of fictional humankind, but be pathetically undiscerning in regards to real life humans.

 

[Dotini]

It's interesting that in an age where there's almost an obsession with having not only flawed characters, but flawed heroes, in film and television, there's the concurrent desperation to banish all that is historically fraught.

It's like there's the assumption that current and future generations are going to revel in the complex nature of fictional humankind, but be pathetically undiscerning in regards to real life humans.

This is the trouble with reestablishing your identity once you've had a moral epiphany.

 

[DK]

Here's a BBC article interviewing the head of the "Council of Conservative Citizens"'s website. In Dylann Roof's manifesto, he claimed that he's "never been the same since" reading their "research".

 

[GTsail]

It is a joke that the stars and bars fly above their capitols. Any noble meaning that flag had has long since died and been trampled many times over by racists and their misplaced pride.

I agree that the flag's original meaning has been corrupted by various racist groups, but I disagree that its a joke to fly the flag above any state capitol building. Flying a SpongeBob squarepants flag on the SC Capitol building would be a joke.

Flying the flag above the SC Capitol building implies that South Carolina still supports the reason that it was raised in the first place.

Its my understanding that this particular flag is really the battle flag for the Army of Northern Virginia (whose primary general was Robert E. Lee). As such, I believe that its proper place is in a museum or to be used during Civil War re-enactments, and not flown over the SC Capitol building.

I consider Robert E. Lee to be an accomplished and impressive general, but I consider it in-appropriate to fly his Army's battle flag over the SC capitol buildings. Flying the Confederate battle flag over the SC Capitol building implies agreement with Robert E. Lee's war aims, and I consider the war aims of General Robert E. Lee to be extremely misguided.

A somewhat similar example would be General Erwin Rommel (the Desert Fox). Rommel was an extremely accomplished German general, but I would consider it in-appropriate to fly a German battle flag over the SC Capitol building (or over a British or Egyptian Government building). The many dead British/American and Egyptian soldiers who fought against Rommel in North Africa should be honored instead.

If South Carolina wants to honor any soldiers, I would rather they honor the 200,000 southerners (many thousands of whom were black) who fought with the North to free the slaves in all the states, and to preserve the Union.

More recently, the Confederate flag was championed by SC politician Strom Thurmond in 1948 when he ran for president under the banner of the States Right Democratic Party. What did this party stand for? Article 4 of its party platform said: "We stand for the segregation of the races, and the racial integrity of each race", "We oppose the elimination of segregation".

Does South Carolina still want to support this party platform?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Omnis]

We currently have a similar debate going on in Kentucky.

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...oval-jefferson-davis-statue-capitol/29168623/

A statue of Jefferson Davis is in the capital rotunda and there is a sudden movement to have it removed. The rotunda features statues of multiple Kentuckians of historical note, but apparently the nation now is that Jefferson Davis' presence sullies the ideas of these statues, and goes directly against the statue of Lincoln, whose statue is the centerpiece of the rotunda.

This goes back to my fear that we are trying to white wash history. Was Davis from Kentucky? Yes. Was he president of the confederacy? Yes. Can that be interpreted to mean that he supported slavery? Yes. Does removing the statue change the fact that a Kentuckian held the highest office of the confederacy? No.

The real question becomes, if we remove this statue do we go on to refuse to acknowledge Davis in any way? Will we rewrite history by just never mentioning it again?

Right now, the most popular idea is to move the statue to the Kentucky History Center, but I wonder how long it will stay there before it is removed.

I remember as a kid touring the capital and having the statues of Davis and Lincoln allowed the tour guide to discuss the opposing leaders during the war and the issues that divided them. It seems like a loss of an educational opportunity.

At the same time, Davis was only born in Kentucky and his role during the war did not represent Kentucky in anyway.

That is ridiculous. Jefferson Davis is a historical figure, and a damn important one at that. You're so right.

And I can't think of anyone whose legacy is more embellished than Lincoln's. Lincoln is a figure to be celebrated only if you worship the state. And there's nothing worse than that. It's sad that we laugh at Dear Leader and the Kims in Korea but are completely on the kool-aid as a nation when it comes to Honest Abe.

 

[Sanji Himura]

We currently have a similar debate going on in Kentucky.

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...oval-jefferson-davis-statue-capitol/29168623/

A statue of Jefferson Davis is in the capital rotunda and there is a sudden movement to have it removed. The rotunda features statues of multiple Kentuckians of historical note, but apparently the nation now is that Jefferson Davis' presence sullies the ideas of these statues, and goes directly against the statue of Lincoln, whose statue is the centerpiece of the rotunda.

This goes back to my fear that we are trying to white wash history. Was Davis from Kentucky? Yes. Was he president of the confederacy? Yes. Can that be interpreted to mean that he supported slavery? Yes. Does removing the statue change the fact that a Kentuckian held the highest office of the confederacy? No.

The real question becomes, if we remove this statue do we go on to refuse to acknowledge Davis in any way? Will we rewrite history by just never mentioning it again?

Right now, the most popular idea is to move the statue to the Kentucky History Center, but I wonder how long it will stay there before it is removed.

I remember as a kid touring the capital and having the statues of Davis and Lincoln allowed the tour guide to discuss the opposing leaders during the war and the issues that divided them. It seems like a loss of an educational opportunity.

At the same time, Davis was only born in Kentucky and his role during the war did not represent Kentucky in anyway.

Well, when you have a president who says "racism is in our DNA", (front page of my local paper today, if you care for a source) you always draw out lunatics like these who want to whitewash history. Take for example the first thanksgiving. It wasn't celebrated in the fall like most Americans, and the calendar, would like you to believe. It was really was observed in the Spring for the pilgrims to give thanks for surviving their first winter in North America. It was through the efforts of Sarah Josepha Hale during the Civil War (by constantly petitioning President Abraham Lincoln with letters) that got Thanksgiving declared as a national holiday on the fourth Thursday in November.

That aside, the statement that "Racism is in our DNA" is completely wrong. Historically speaking, slavery was one of our darker sides of us, but we knew that at the moment that the constitution was written to recognize blacks as 3/5ths of a person, slavery, as an issue, would have to be addressed sooner or later. It was just sad that it had to be settled with bloodshed.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Well with enough domestic strife, surely nobody will notice this titantic shift in foreign policy...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/24/fact-sheet-us-government-hostage-policy

The two big change, as written by TWH:

PPD-30 reaffirms the “no concessions” policy, but makes clear for the first time that “no concessions” does not mean “no communication.” The U.S. Government may itself communicate with hostage-takers, their intermediaries, interested governments, and local communities to attempt to secure the safe recovery of the hostage.

In this context, there has been concern expressed by families of hostages about potential prosecutions of family members under the statute prohibiting the provision of material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations. Consistent with the no-concessions policy, the U.S. Government will focus on exploring all appropriate options to ensure the safe recovery of their loved ones. The United States Department of Justice does not intend to add to families’ pain in such cases by suggesting that they could face criminal prosecution.

So essentially, families will now be legally allowed to pay off hostage takers to recover their family members and the US government will be negotiating [in some capacity] with terrorists and other non-state criminals. Personally, I think this is a dangerous move that could potentially endanger many Americans overseas. I was planning to travel to the middle east next summer (Iran) but this has me concerned.

Now that I think about it, I think this will effect Americans in Central & South America far more. Whereas in the middle east, hostage taking is very high profile and linked to big symbolic messages and terrorism and jihadists, in Mexico it's simply a business. Out of the two Mexican girls I've dated, one was actually kidnapped and the other's father was kidnapped, both held for ransom. In both cases, they were targeted because they were wealthy, nothing more. It's a straightforward business. You take somebody, and you request money for their life. The BIGGEST deterrence against this is the knowledge that the US Government is going to give you ****-all nothing, and not even their families are allowed to pay you. I think this is why relatively few Americans are kidnapped south of the border. There is almost no incentive. Now, there might be. And that's dangerous.

You know....it makes me mad. I don't really care about politics. I don't give a **** about Obama one way or another. But his last year in office he seems absolutely desperate to make some imagined significant contribution to the US's foreign policy and international standing. Cuba, Iran, and now this. I don't think he's really thinking these things through.