Topic These US gun control / law debates are pointless, here's my opinion why
30 Apr 2013 09:04
I don't just believe this, I know this because it is a fact. U.S. citizens have a right, under the United States Constitution, to own a gun, tank, fighter jet, submarine etc... And there are many citizens on U.S. soil who own such a thing - if they can afford it.
That kind of thinking scares me. so, you'd be ok with someone, as long as they have enough money to do it, with.... oh, let's say building a compound out in Texas along with a lot of like minded friends, laying down an airstrip, purchasing jet fighters, arming them with missiles and bombs, arming everyone with military grade weapons, throwing in some tanks, maybe have some surface to air missiles set up on the grounds. you'd be ok with that?
oh, and another thought. apparently you had no issue with the two guys who set off bombs a the Boston Marathon as well? right, they had every right to have bombs. it's in the constitution, after all. the right to run around with bombs in duffle bags. good god...
You misunderstand the entire concept. Not just British tyranny, but local as well - Battle of Athens 1946. I understand that it is a human right, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but I'm pretty sure Britain/Australia has some local problems they can be dealing with, and shouldn't be wasting their time on American issues. It's understandable as to why, but completely disrespectful. Especially if the foreigners have never visited the United States.
it's not 1946. it's 2013. what worked then would, today, probably be carried out through the medium of social media and, hopefully, peaceful intervention. if i understand you correctly, you seem to believe that citizens have the right to armed and violent protest. You'd have supported the Rodney King incited riots in '92? you think the confederacy was justified into going to war in 1861? how about the '99 world trade riots in Seattle? we cool with guns here? Civil rights? Stonewall? Just because it worked in '46 doesn't make it right nor does it apply to the world as it is today.
The days of separate nations are long over? What does that mean? Are you speaking about the "New World Order" conspiracy theory? Or are you speaking about the trade and treaties? Sure, treaties and trade are healthy for nations. But it's not healthy when nations that are in economic troubles ask the U.S. for a big check for a few hundred million U.S. dollars to bail out their economy - and that's basically all the world is right now. Stupid socialist programs that cause economies to collapse, and no politicians ever learns from these mistakes. I think it's humorous how we are the most hated country in the world, yet we are the one who has to save the ass of every nation in crisis. What would happen if the U.S. closed its borders, treaties and trade, and became self-sufficient? The U.S. would start to grow again, and the rest of the world would be in pure chaos. That's sad and funny all at the same time.
nope, i am so not a conspiracy theorist. in case you hadn't notice, our economies these days are very intertwined - the status of the euro affects the us economy, the us economy affects the global market, the situation in the mid east affects the oil market, china owns part of our debt, the list goes on.
on top of that, news access, media access is instant these days - very little happens that can't be transmitted around the world to a wide audience in a matter of seconds. if there's a gov't take over, or collapse, the entire world will know about it moments after it happens. btw, if we became a seclusionist country, don't forget we'll lose global trade as well, both imports and exports. prices will go up, companies relying on overseas distribution will go broke, all those who come to this country to make contributions will be shut out. how would that affect us? one example in many. Penicillin, while it was developed for sythisized mass production in the US, it was discovered by a Scot and developed for medicinal use in England and Austrailia.
I won't even comment on your last statement. Your ignorance runs rampant.
not sure why you felt compelled to go with the personal insults, but whatever. just pointing out that the British are not the only one with a run of tyranical decisions. please don't tell me that the Shah of Iran was put in place for the good of the Iranian people, that the Invasion of Iraq was justified, that the entire fiasco of Vietnam was something we should have been involved in. :)