America - The Official Thread

[Johnnypenso]

You mean the response isn't very specific?

Nice try but to even begin to understand the United States and how it works you need to understand the Constitution and the principles upon which the country was founded. You cannot apply the principles and values of your own country, wherever that may be, to the US of A. This, I believe, is a major source of confusion for many people when it comes to trying to understand what is happening south of our border.

Joe Rogan is a lot more than just a UFC announcer. But more specifically its the guests on his podcast that matters. The entire podcast is relevent to my decision on the topic we were discussing but i think what you are looking for is right around an hour twenty into the podcast.

Thanks, I will give it a listen when I get home later. I thought Joe Rogan was just the UFC/ Fear Factor guy

 

[Pupik]

Crimes? You mean Hillary right?

Did I miss something, or is Hillary Clinton the President of the United States?

I understand Donald Trump was nobody's first choice, but Jesus Erlenmeyer Volkswagen Combi Christ on a Bike, it's time to stop playing the Hillary Card and admit your chosen leader occasionally makes a gaffe or two. It's actually to possible to ignore a lot of things without pointlessly turning it around.

Nice try but to even begin to understand the United States and how it works you need to understand the Constitution and the principles upon which the country was founded. You cannot apply the principles and values of your own country, wherever that may be, to the US of A. This, I believe, is a major source of confusion for many people when it comes to trying to understand what is happening south of our border.

You do realize he's an American?

And no, our Constitution is rather vague in many places, and is not the final document of all law in our Nation, no matter what you've heard in Trudeau-Land. Otherwise, we wouldn't have adjusted it, modified it, and added amendments to it over the past 230 years, along with a whopping bunch of US Code and state, county*, and city law.

* or parish, independent city unit, unorganized borough, or county-equivalent.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You do realize he's an American?

And no, our Constitution is rather vague in many places, and is not the final document of all law in our Nation, no matter what you've heard in Trudeau-Land. Otherwise, we wouldn't have adjusted it, modified it, and added amendments to it over the past 230 years, along with a whopping bunch of US Code and state, county*, and city law.

* or parish, independent city unit, unorganized borough, or county-equivalent.

American or not I'd say the same thing. Just because he's American doesn't mean he understands the roots of the country he lives in and how from the very beginning Americans have valued freedom and liberty above all else. There have been 11,000 amendments proposed and only 27 passed in the last 230 years and arguably none of major significance in the 100 years since women were given the right to vote. The original framers of the Constitution were so worried about enshrining the protection of individual rights that the first ten amendments were swiftly passed in 1791 and became known as the Bill of Rights and that included the right to keep and bear arms. The entire country was shaped by this relatively simple and brief document in a way that few, if any other countries have been.

 

[Biggles]

So... Just 13 people from Russia have shook the world's most powerful democracy?..




Ah-hahahahaha

Reading all of this make me remember an old Jewish joke.

"- Isaac, why do you read those anti-semithic Soviet newspapers? They write so bad things about us!"
"- Look, when I read Israeli newspapers, all I see is that we have corruption, mess and disorder over here. When I read Soviet newspapers, I read that we have taken over the half of the world and now are taking over the other half".

I feel just like this. That's why I enjoy reading American (and other Western) media writing about Russia, to take a break from the 🤬 I regularly see on the Russian news. There are barely any elections in the world where we haven't involved, according to it.

I don't doubt that Putin & his lackeys have been attempting to influence elections in the US & elsewhere around the world (most obviously in former Soviet bloc countries). However, surely it should be obvious that the US does exactly the same thing itself? The US has been manipulating political outcomes all over the world for decades, helping instal the Shah in Iran, helping oust Allende in Chile, funding the Contras in Nicaragua, invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam - the list of interventions is endless. And the US is not the only Western country that has done & continues to this.

 

[Rallywagon]

Whenever i hear people talk about political meddling, Panama plays in my head and I day dream about Contra...

 

[Scaff]

I'm just not getting it. I don't see anything gained.

One train of thought is that its not about gain, but about revenge and self preservation.

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black...tline-explores-lifetime-grievances-against-us

 

[CodeRedR51]

NRA-branded Visa card dropped by First National Bank of Omaha
US bank halts NRA credit card, car rental firm ends discount

Not sure exactly where these go but this seems like a good place.

 

[ryzno]

NRA-branded Visa card dropped by First National Bank of Omaha
US bank halts NRA credit card, car rental firm ends discount

Not sure exactly where these go but this seems like a good place.

That's so stupid. The NRA had nothing to do with the shooting nor was the shooter a member...
They promote gun safety...

 

[Pupik]

That's so stupid. The NRA had nothing to do with the shooting nor was the shooter a member...
They promote gun safety...

Maybe having two degrees of separation from inflexible politicians isn't such a great idea. Of course, when they want a favor, that bridge will be burned and they'll have to build a new one with a lot of greenbacks.

Welcome to Infrastructure Week!

 

[Joey D]

Eh, they're private companies so they're free to do what they wish when it comes to promoting their business. I'm guessing they figured with all the flak the NRA is getting, it's best not to be associated with them. Don't worry though, some company will pick them up or start giving discounts to members.

 

[Imari]

They promote gun safety...

Only in the broadest sense of the word. They also oppose any proposed laws that might put more checks or restrictions on people obtaining lethal weapons, even if those proposed laws also are aimed towards increasing gun safety.

They promote possession of guns above all else. They promote safety as a secondary thing, assuming already that people have guns. The problem is that there are very compelling modern reasons for restricting ownership, and the reasons for the Second Amendment broadly declaring the right to keep and bear arms don't exactly apply any more.

Back then, there was a significant limit on what you could do with a handheld firearm, and personal weapons were required as they were expected to be used should you be called into the militia. The government didn't have the capacity to arm thousands of militiamen at the drop of a hat. Now we have weapons that can do way more damage in a time span shorter than any bystander can react, and we have a dedicated military that supplies it's members with government issued firearms. There's a good reason military weapons aren't available to the public, and there's a reasonable discussion around what level of firearm the public actually requires access to and what levels of checks and restrictions should be in place to make sure that only responsible citizens own them.

There's still arguments for private ownership of guns, but they're not the same reasons as in 1791. Oddly enough, times change.

 

[Eh Team]

That's so stupid. The NRA had nothing to do with the shooting nor was the shooter a member...
They promote gun safety...

Random non-citizen opinion: My understanding of the NRA is that it is by and large an ease of gun ownership association. They may do safety here and there but they focus on making acquiring and owning guns easy because it is a right (privelege).

-----

More Opinion: This is probably more a discussion for the human rights thread but I'll touch on it now. Basic human rights are not something tangible, the right to choose (vote), the right to live as you please (freedom). Owning a gun is a privelege just as owning a car. In the snowy North you must have a license to operate both. The government trusts you with the privelege of such responsibility. License requirements vary state to state when really the federal government should control it since they are the ones providing that specific right (privelege). The only thing a state should have control of on a federally distributed license is the age at which one can qualify for said license.

 

[polysmut]

License requirements vary state to state when really the federal government should control it since they are the ones providing that specific right (privelege).

If you're talking about the USA then I think the Federal government agrees not to legislate to infringe certain rights rather than providing rights itself. If you were still talking about Canada then that may be different.

 

[Eh Team]

If you're talking about the USA then I think the Federal government agrees not to legislate to infringe certain rights rather than providing rights itself. If you were still talking about Canada then that may be different.

Sorry I didn't make that transition clear, I did mean the USA. My point is more that owning a gun has been mislabelled as a right. The government could come and physically take your gun or car away, thereby making it a privelege in my opinion. The government can't for example come to your door and physically take with them your right to vote.

 

[Joey D]

The NRA is slimy, but only because they're a lobbying group that tries to trump the will of the people that elected a given representative. I hate pretty much any lobbying group and wish they didn't exist. When it comes to a representative government, the representative should be representing a group of people, not whoever gives them the most money.

Also, while gun ownership could be argued as a privilege, self-defense and protection of yourself and property is a right. The best way to protect yourself from the bad guy is to either have a better weapon or at least a weapon on par with theirs. However, I personally think the most you ever need to defend yourself or property is something like a 9mm handgun.

 

[Northstar]

The government can't for example come to your door and physically take with them your right to vote.

Unless you're a felon that is. Than it kind of depends on what state you are in.

 

[Eh Team]

Unless you're a felon that is. Than it kind of depends on what state you are in.

That's not quite what I meant. A gun is a physical object that a government representative could come to your house and take away. A government representative can come to your door and tell you that you can no longer vote but that is not a physical thing that they touch and put in their bag/pocket on the way back to their car. A right is not something that can be touched, a gun can be, which is what makes it a privelege That is the difference I'm trying to convey.

 

[Northstar]

That's not quite what I meant. A gun is a physical object that a government representative could come to your house and take away. A government representative can come to your door and tell you that you can no longer vote but that is not a physical thing that they touch and put in their bag/pocket on the way back to their car. A right is not something that can be touched, a gun can be, which is what makes it a privelege That is the difference I'm trying to convey.

And I was trying to point out that just because the constitution says something doesn't mean there is no room for flexibility.

 

[Imari]

Also, while gun ownership could be argued as a privilege, self-defense and protection of yourself and property is a right. The best way to protect yourself from the bad guy is to either have a better weapon or at least a weapon on par with theirs. However, I personally think the most you ever need to defend yourself or property is something like a 9mm handgun.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that if someone comes into your house with a weapon, the best way to get out of that situation unharmed is to be as non-threatening as possible. Let them take what they want and leave, and then set the cops on them. In that sense, a set of home security cameras might be more desirable than a firearm.

But even if a firearm is the best choice, I tend to agree with you that there's little advantage to anything beyond a decent pistol. I happened to see a 50 cal being fired recently (for a legitimate military purpose, I might add), and while it was beyond any argument totally awesome I struggle to think of any real situation in which a civilian would need such a gun where something else wouldn't be more appropriate.

 

[Joey D]

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that if someone comes into your house with a weapon, the best way to get out of that situation unharmed is to be as non-threatening as possible. Let them take what they want and leave, and then set the cops on them. In that sense, a set of home security cameras might be more desirable than a firearm.

But even if a firearm is the best choice, I tend to agree with you that there's little advantage to anything beyond a decent pistol. I happened to see a 50 cal being fired recently (for a legitimate military purpose, I might add), and while it was beyond any argument totally awesome I struggle to think of any real situation in which a civilian would need such a gun where something else wouldn't be more appropriate.

I'm not sure. When someone attempted to break into my house back in Michigan in daylight, with my wife on the couch in the living room, being non-confrontational didn't really do anything. As soon as she grabbed my hunting rifle and yelled she was going to shoot the bastard through the door, the guys ran. It then took the police almost an hour to come out to the house and even though we had a license plate, description of the vehicle and the guys. They found the guys, but couldn't do anything because according to the police they never made it into the house. I lost nearly any respect I had for our local law enforcement that day.

After that, I bought my handgun and now I'm of the mindset anyone trying to get into my residence unlawfully will be fired upon. The gods only know what would've happened if the intruder had gotten in my house in Michigan with my wife there by herself. And for all I know, they might not've wanted any of my stuff, but rather to kill and/or rape.

I'd rather assume the worse when dealing with criminals who want into my house and act accordingly.

Obviously, this is all anecdotal though and I have no idea what the best solution is.

Outside my property, I'd be of a different mindset. I don't carry my pistol and I think running and hiding would be a better option than going on the offensive. I do carry a legal knife though, but that's only to protect myself from the homeless that roam Salt Lake City who get violent when you tell them you have no money.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Random non-citizen opinion: My understanding of the NRA is that it is by and large an ease of gun ownership association. They may do safety here and there but they focus on making acquiring and owning guns easy because it is a right (privelege).

More Opinion: This is probably more a discussion for the human rights thread but I'll touch on it now. Basic human rights are not something tangible, the right to choose (vote), the right to live as you please (freedom). Owning a gun is a privelege just as owning a car. In the snowy North you must have a license to operate both. The government trusts you with the privelege of such responsibility. License requirements vary state to state when really the federal government should control it since they are the ones providing that specific right (privelege). The only thing a state should have control of on a federally distributed license is the age at which one can qualify for said license.

Sorry I didn't make that transition clear, I did mean the USA. My point is more that owning a gun has been mislabelled as a right. The government could come and physically take your gun or car away, thereby making it a privelege in my opinion. The government can't for example come to your door and physically take with them your right to vote.

There's no need to give opinions on what the NRA is or isn't. You could just look up the facts instead. Like the fact that their lobbying budget is 1/15 that of ....the National Association of Realtors. And owning firearms is a right in the U.S. not a privilege. It's written right into the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms. This is why I mentioned earlier in this thread that one needs thoroughly understand the Constitution and what it has meant to Americans this last couple of centuries.

 

[ryzno]

And I was trying to point out that just because the constitution says something doesn't mean there is no room for flexibility.

And on that note.
I am a felon. Oddly enough I can vote and receive Jury summons but I can't buy a gun, maybe I should try?
Anyways I did some stupid stuff kids do in '04.
I haven't done anything wrong in 14 years. I believe I should have the right to defend myself from the dumb younger me.
But I assume I can't and don't want someone knocking on my door asking 1000 questions if I do try to get one.

I can't exactly explain my view as usual but I do have a reason behind my argument.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Delta and United are also out.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Only in the broadest sense of the word. They also oppose any proposed laws that might put more checks or restrictions on people obtaining lethal weapons, even if those proposed laws also are aimed towards increasing gun safety.

They promote possession of guns above all else. They promote safety as a secondary thing, assuming already that people have guns. The problem is that there are very compelling modern reasons for restricting ownership, and the reasons for the Second Amendment broadly declaring the right to keep and bear arms don't exactly apply any more.

Back then, there was a significant limit on what you could do with a handheld firearm, and personal weapons were required as they were expected to be used should you be called into the militia. The government didn't have the capacity to arm thousands of militiamen at the drop of a hat. Now we have weapons that can do way more damage in a time span shorter than any bystander can react, and we have a dedicated military that supplies it's members with government issued firearms. There's a good reason military weapons aren't available to the public, and there's a reasonable discussion around what level of firearm the public actually requires access to and what levels of checks and restrictions should be in place to make sure that only responsible citizens own them.

There's still arguments for private ownership of guns, but they're not the same reasons as in 1791. Oddly enough, times change.

Militia=Army in 1776.

 

[Rallywagon]

Militia=Army in 1776.

That changed when Scalia and a small majority of SCOTUS judges ruled that the person part of the 2nd outweighed the militia part and protected the individual right. Interestingly though, Scalia had said something to the effect that there was still room for some forms of regulation.

My personal experience, which involved a lot of weapons training, the original intent of the 2nd is pointless these days. We arent using militias for military exercises anymore. Every state has its own guard unit. If the governement decided to go tyrannical, no amount of farmers, hunters, sports shooters etc, are going to stand up to divisiona of tanks, mraps, fighter jets, etc etc etc that our military possess. So that point has pretty much been rendered moot.
As such, i see no issue restricting weapons to revolvers, black powder and bolt action systems. There is no need for semi auto with high capacity mags. They generally arent legal for hunting. Sports shooting can evolve around the new laws, and a revolver certainly will do all that is needed for self defense.
I think the biggest hurdle then would be getting current gun owners, especially the ones vehemently opposed to control, to turn over their weapons systems. So much so that I wouldnt be surprised to see it turn into something akin to a civil war.

 

[McLaren]

That changed when Scalia and a small majority of SCOTUS judges ruled that the person part of the 2nd outweighed the militia part and protected the individual right. Interestingly though, Scalia had said something to the effect that there was still room for some forms of regulation.

My personal experience, which involved a lot of weapons training, the original intent of the 2nd is pointless these days. We arent using militias for military exercises anymore. Every state has its own guard unit. If the governement decided to go tyrannical, no amount of farmers, hunters, sports shooters etc, are going to stand up to divisiona of tanks, mraps, fighter jets, etc etc etc that our military possess. So that point has pretty much been rendered moot.
As such, i see no issue restricting weapons to revolvers, black powder and bolt action systems. There is no need for semi auto with high capacity mags. They generally arent legal for hunting. Sports shooting can evolve around the new laws, and a revolver certainly will do all that is needed for self defense.
I think the biggest hurdle then would be getting current gun owners, especially the ones vehemently opposed to control, to turn over their weapons systems. So much so that I wouldnt be surprised to see it turn into something akin to a civil war.

Don’t care if I need a semi-auto or not. There’s a lot of useless stuff we don’t need in this country, but the 2A gives me the right to own one regardless what my intention is (bar shooting others without cause). I actually have a rifle on order right now bc I want to dive deeper into shooting as a weekend hobby bc it’s fun to experiment with different guns and see how well they’re constructed. I spent a couple weekends ago shooting a friend’s AR and AK just to see how 2 “assault rifles” differ.

The argument about the military is pointless as well; the govt is not going to use tanks and jets on its own citizens in this country. I’d wager they’d lose a huge chunk of military personnel as soon as they even tried to execute such a drastic action against US citizens.

 

[Rallywagon]

Don’t care if I need a semi-auto or not. There’s a lot of useless stuff we don’t need in this country, but the 2A gives me the right to own one regardless what my intention is (bar shooting others without cause). I actually have a rifle on order right now bc I want to dive deeper into shooting as a weekend hobby bc it’s fun to experiment with different guns and see how well they’re constructed. I spent a couple weekends ago shooting a friend’s AR and AK just to see how 2 “assault rifles” differ.

good for you, and currently, the law allows you this freedom. I was simply stating my opinion on the matter.

The argument about the military is pointless as well; the govt is not going to use tanks and jets on its own citizens in this country. I’d wager they’d lose a huge chunk of military personnel as soon as they even tried to execute such a drastic action against US citizens.

It might, it might not. I would hope it wouldnt. But that really just further backs up the point that we dont need guns to keep a tyrannical gov at bay.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It might, it might not. I would hope it wouldnt. But that really just further backs up the point that we dont need guns to keep a tyrannical gov at bay.

What do you think will keep them at bay? Good intentions? Faith? Thoughts and prayers?

 

[Scaff]

What do you think will keep them at bay? Good intentions? Faith? Thoughts and prayers?

Do you honestly think that if the US government wanted to go full 'Assad' on its people that the ownership of small arms is really going to make that much of a difference?

Small arms ownership in the event of the above is about as effective as thoughts and prayers.

 

[ryzno]

Do you honestly think that if the US government wanted to go full 'Assad' on its people that the ownership of small arms is really going to make that much of a difference?

Small arms ownership in the event of the above is about as effective as thoughts and prayers.

Is it really? ISIS has survived a good while with simple weapons...