True dat.
Especially with this gem -
First, we will make them wear emblems on their clothing, in the shape of little yellow guns…
Regards,
Shodan
Fascism is normally categorized as applying to someone with extreme right-wing, nationalistic, militaristic and/or racist views, none of which I generally fit into.
To reiterate, one, I do not believe that the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to own private guns and two, I do not see the need for individual people to own guns. I advocate that the government and/or courts eliminate any misconceptions about the 2nd amendment by making it clear that it does not apply to individual owning of guns. After this is done, then it would be illegal to own guns. I fail to see how any of these points would allow you to categorize me as a fascist. It is clear that you do not fully understand what the definition of fascism is.
The example was sarcastic in nature in reply to the original stupid contention that the citizenry will rise up en masse were the government to make gun ownership illegal. Trying staying in context when you quote something! Yes, you’ll have to do some manual editing but that’s life.
Characteristics of Fascism:
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
No, I seem to know the definition of fascism quite well, and I’m typing at one right now. Note how you keep refering to “I believe…”. No evidence, no reasoning that remotly resembles logic, just “I believe.”
So what? Proves nothing.Too bad for them that “I believe” that they shouldn’t own cars. There is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about car ownership, and because thousands of people die each year because of the misuse of cars, they should be banned. Have you actually read what you are writing? :rolleyes: You are rapidly making a fool of yourself.
Well, Iraq isn’t the USA. Neither is Britian. Nor is Switzerland (and note in Switzerland- the Law REQUIRES every able bodied man to keep an assault rifle in his home). Guns don’t seem to have much effect on violent crime. Sociology does, not guns. Thus, when you have two areas with the same sort of population make up and social stratus- like two adjacent areas of the USA- or an area with open gun ownership before and strict gun controls after- there is no significant change in violent crime with or without gun control. Oh sure- both sides can throw around stats like crazed weasels. Some stats show an*overall * crime decrease when Gun controls are put in place- but why would bad check writing go down when the kiter couldn’t carry a gun anymore? I want to see a decrease in VIOLENT crime. Not just “gun crime”- I am not safer if crooks turn to samurai swords. :rolleyes: It seems like decreases in crime are tied to one thing only- when th economy gets better- crime decreases. :smack: Guns-one way or the other- don’t seem to have all that much effect
Thus, since Gun Control- like it or not and 2nd Admendment or not- does not seem to have the desired effect of making me/us any safer- then why?
The exact meaning of the 2nd Admendment isn’t critical to me. If Gun Control supporters could show that I/we would be a LOT safer, I’d happily discard the damn poorly written thing. But it seems like all Gun Control does is take some freedom from me, and makes me rely on the Police that much more- and I get nothing in exchange.
And- Booze kills more dudes every year than guns ever did. Let’s ban Booze first. And we know how well that worked… :rolleyes:
This is the problem iamme. The charge people get out of owning a gun is already too deaply ingrained in some Americans. Handguns could never be outlawed in the US because the cat’s already out of the bag. Too many people like bandit would rather “hunt down and kill” any law enforcement officers who tried to enforce any laws banning handguns. Presumably they would be this bloodthirsty and criminal even if the Second Amendment was repealed.
I myself wish that most guns could be outlawed in the USA. But over the years I have changed my views on the 2nd Amendment and have come to the conclusion that it does explicity allow for private ownership of weapons. Therefore, unless the amendment was repealed, I can not support outright banning of all private gun ownership.
Love the sig! 
Could you point me to the Pratchett book where he said it?
Just to toss out another thing to think about: Does anybody truly believe that the Armed Forces of the United States would fire on US citizens? Because iamme seems to think that the Army could disarm America. Ain’t gonna happen. The first time some 19 year old tries to take away Grandma’s old Colt, there will be hell to pay. I would predict wholesale desertions and units refusing to obey orders, no matter WHAT the Supreme Court says about the 2nd Amendment.
Source?
Won’t be the first or the last time. I still think you’re both crazy and wrong.
By iamme99 “So now, prove to me why guns are necessary?”
Hey! I need my guns. In the past week I’ve shot two beavers that were destroying my trees and one cottonmouth that was threatening to kill my dog and one wild turkey that we’re going to eat.
If somebody comes to take my guns away, I’ll do my best to shoot them too.
So THERE!
Beavers and a Cottonmouth? I saw those on National Geographic once! And we buy our turkey already dead in the store around these parts <lol>.
14 Characteristics of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Richard Henry Lee, Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.
—George Mason
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” – Tenche Coxe, An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
—Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…*t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
—Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
“That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.” – Within Mason’s declaration of “the essential and unalienable Rights of the People,” – later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788
"Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia "
Repealing the 2nd ammendment wont get rid of our rights to own guns.
We are endowed with our rights by our creator.
The Bill of Rights are unalienable. The 2nd ammendment did not “give” us our right to own guns, so repealing the 2nd ammendment wont take it away.
YOu are right that the 2nd ammendment was only meant to “protect” our already right to own guns, but keep in mind that your suggestion to repeal the 2nd ammendment would not get rid of that right. It would only make it a little easier(but still not legal) for tyrants in government to try to suppress American gun rights.
I don’t suppose you have a cite to back this up this statement, do you?
MAJOR difference - we haven’t outlawed tobacco use entirely. Sure, there are restrictions on where you can smoke, but you’re still allowed to puff away outside, in your own home, in your own car… why, even many places of public accomodation still make allowances for smokers. Smoking sections in restaurants, for example, and smoker’s rooms in hotels.
So people can still smoke if they choose to, or use snuff. They don’t have unlimited freedom in this regard, but they still retain the option of using tobacco. Then again, one can’t carry a firearm into a government building, or use it to threaten others. I don’t think anyone here is advocating strapping on a six-shooter as normal daily attire. But one can “keep and bear arms” without turning into a psycho.
Bogus. You are correct, not everyone lives in NYC. In fact, I have never been to NYC, even as a tourist. I have, however, worked in the Chicago Loop for 21 years and during all that time I have never driven to work. In fact, for 6 of those 21 years I not only did not own a car, I never got behind the wheel at all.
I still take mass transit to work. By the way - I no longer live in Chicago. In fact, I no longer live in Illinois. I commute 45 miles daily from Indiana on a train just fine, thank you very much.
Maybe you think cars are necessary in rural areas? Go tell that to the Amish living about 10 miles east of me. Or, my preference, we could use airplanes out in the boondocks. Heck, I’ve got plans this morning to ride my bicycle down to the local airfield and maybe fly out to Karen’s in Rochester, Indiana for breakfast - it’s only 70 miles - without a car - and have a very enjoyable morning.
So, to make this point perfectly clear, YOU DON’T NEED A CAR. Yes, you need transportation but it’s a fallacy that you need it in the form of a car. Cars are very handy and useful, but they aren’t necessary.
You know, the government is supposed to serve the people, not “make examples” of them.
By the way - just for the record - I do not own a gun, and never have. Why? I don’t particularly feel the need to own one at this time. I do, however, wish to fiercely defend my option of owning a gun. So really, in addition to all those frothing-mouth actual gun-owners out there I expect there are also a fair number of us who, like me, do not own at present but are nonetheless 2nd ammendment supporters. Have you factored us into your equations, iamme99?
Being 5’3" tall and pushing 40, I do not labor under the illusion I am anything other than at a disadvantage compared to your average thug - male, a half to a foot taller than me, 50 to 100 lbs heavier than me, younger than me, and stronger than me. As I said, I do not feel a need for a gun at this time, but perhaps when I am 80 and even less strong than I am I might. And why *shouldn’t * small, 80 year old woman be allowed the means to defend herself?
The police are historians - they typically arrive after the crime has occured. Oh, but if a mugger beats me up and takes my wallet, maybe breaks my nose or a couple of ribs, that’s OK because by preventing me from defending myself you’ve made society as a whole safer? If you won’t let me carry a gun what WILL you let me carry? How will I be allowed to defend myself? Or am I underserving of the “privilege” of self defense merely due to an accident of genetics and gender?
Cars cause 40,000 deaths a year, and I, for one, could function quite nicely without one, particularly if those wasteful hulks were cleaned off the road giving me a clear path to take my bicycle to the train station. Not to mention that if folks all had to convert to bikes and walking they’d get MUCH more exercise, we’d have a lot less obese folks even if they continued to snack on cheeseburgers, and hey - this is GREAT! Save 40,000 lives a year AND improve the health of the nation!!!
Really, I don’t drive much at all - I put gas in the car about once every three weeks. In the summer, about once a month (more biking, less driving).
Well, not really. Sure, you’ll eliminate gun deaths but there are all sorts of other ways to cause mayhem. I mean, just ask the wannabe truck thief from my area a couple years ago. If you talk to him, he might want you to take away my crossbow. Granted, he has personal reasons for that stance. Then again, if hadn’t been trying to steal our truck from our driveway he wouldn’t have been shot (and no, we did not kill him - the point was to discourage him, not to really cause him grievious bodily harm).
From my viewpoint, death by crossbow, knife, or broken beer bottle is just as unacceptable as death by lead shot. It means little to me if we eliminate gun deaths if they’re replaced by other deaths. It means little to me to eliminate gun crime only to have them replaced by crime using other weapons.
Robotic-controlled cars? Pfiffle! I can already tend to my knitting, read, nap, pick my nose, or otherwise amuse myself on my daily commute. Hey, even better than a car, the trains have toilets where I can pick my nose so others will not have to see me and be offended. Heck, I can even take my morning crap on the way to work, are you going to install toilets in those robotic cars, too?
You know what, iamme99? I get the distinct impression you don’t trust people. You don’t trust us to take care of ourselves, you don’t trust us to drive… what will you ban next, for our own good? Alcohol? Meat? Snack food? Sun bathing? For the good of society, of course, and screw the rights of the individual. Are you going to take away my bicycle, too? After all, I could fall off and injure myself, or maybe get run over by someone driving a car … hey, aren’t you one of those dangerous car drivers…? You just can’t reason with some people, the only way you’ll get them out of their vehicles is to pry their cold, dead fingers off the steering wheel…
iamme99, why are you more fit to judge what’s right for me than I myself am?
[gunownerhumor]
You can come and get my gun,hell, I’ll let you have it…
…Bullets first.
[/gunownerhumor]
Listen, iamme, you and your ilk can work your fool head off, it simply ain’t gonna happen. Like it or not, America was built, and continues to thrive in a culture whose fulcrum is guns. You cannot now, nor will you be able to in the immediate future, change that.
In an abstract way, America IS the gun. We would not be where we are, good and bad, without the gun, and in today’s climate of fear, you’re sure as hell not going to get them out of our hands now, pal.
And FWIW, the arguement that we’re armed to prevent an invasion isn’t so bloody far fetched. History bears that out, and I’d wager it will continue to do so, despite your desultory meanderings.
What’s more, if the gov’t did need a ‘forceable adjustment’ by it’s citizens, even if 1/4th of the 240 odd million of us (that’s round about 60 million) were armed, that would overshadow by a damn site the 1.4 million dedicated men and women deployed worldwide, were they turned against us.
Oh yeah, and one more thing.
Shut up.
Say what?
Why not just say that as far as guns, they will eventually be controlled by robotics, would you be ok with them then?
Cite for numbers wielding rodents please! 
The image this inspired has me chuckling. Thanks. 
Do you think mass transit is available to everyone? Shall we just abandon the areas of the country that don’t have it? The fact is that MOST of this country is just not suitable for mass transit.
Broomstick, really, this is a silly argument. You don’t need a car, fine. I do need a car. I need the dreaded SUV. Could I move and get by without a car. Sure. I would be miserable but I could.
Do you have air conditioning? Central heat? I don’t. Many people would be miserable living without them. I’m fine. Would you be willing to move so that you don’t need A/C?
Have you thought this through at all?