Opinions on the new world order

I just wanted to know if anyone has any opinions on the new world order and if my fellow americans have anything to say on the attacks on our constitution and especially on the 2nd amendment i know were jedi but i live in Detroit and if a crack head breaks in to my house i would like to defend myself if he has a gun. Just recently someone stole my dads trailer hitch right out of our drive way why i dont know maybe for scrap but me personally i am a proud American and love my country and our history and feel the forefathers had it right. And for all else in other countries from my understanding the NWO has already taken your rights to bare arms and how has that affected your society. In America sense '91 firearm sales have increased and violent crimes have plummeted 51% i read online (infowars) that in the UK that sense they took your guns violent crime has sky rocketed is this true and how has it affected your society.

AMD1988 wrote: ...the NWO has already taken your rights to bare arms...

*Hulk Hogan voice*
Ain't no registry for THESE GUNS, BROTHER.

Because clearly guns are the answer to everything.


I also happen to live in a society that has access to guns (within reason) and we have very little violent crime. In fact someone was shot and killed over a week ago and it has been front page news ever since.... yes, 1 person.

Violent crime is not the result of victims not being able to shoot the perpetrators. If there is a situation where people feel marginalized, disenfranchised or just plain desperate, there will always be crime.

There is a wonderful quote that says "If we taught every 8 year old to meditate, violence would disappear within a generation." Tolerance, compassion and understanding are a much better start than simply arming more people. It puts everyone in the wrong frame of mind.

Brenna wrote: Because clearly guns are the answer to everything.

Before the advent and widespread use of firearms, it was swords. Before that, spears. In some cultures oppressive regimes went so far as to outlaw everything that even resembled a fighting weapon or style--hence the rise of the Irish blackthorn walking stick, 90% of the weapons used in Okinawan karate, and Capoeira.

We have 300 million people, and more than that many guns. We have mass killing after mass killing. We have road rages turning into murder (had a guy sentenced to death over just that last year here). Guns used in just about every possible violent scenario, etc etc.

We don't need more guns. They seem to have only enabled this culture of violence. Also, pretty sure the UK is not more violent than the US, don't know where you are getting your stats, but I will let the brit jedi handle that one.

Also, a quick bit of fact checking brings up this gem.


According to that comparison, violent crime is twice as frequent in the UK as in the U.S.

One of the problems with such comparisons is a difference in definitions—it is important to know what constitutes a “violent crime” in the different jurisdictions. As the Daily Mail article notes, “In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.” [According to the British public order laws, “A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and the person’s conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.”]

Not really comparing apples with apples if you take statistics without understanding their context.

Report can be found here
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013582.html

I will agree that we do not need more guns, but I do not agree that guns are responsible for enabling a culture of violence. The same result could be had with baseball bats and ironing boards. I don't understand why we blame guns for gun violence when we don't blame cars for traffic accidents.

This is a symptom of a much larger social issue, because when you blame guns instead of criminals, you are effectively telling society that you are not responsible for your actions--you're deferring responsibility for your actions on inanimate objects, and it is somehow their fault. With gun violence, this is bad enough, but it's being reinforced in every area of American popular thought, as well. If your weight is out of control, we blame the portion sizes and not your self-control. If your anger gets the better of you, we blame your parents and society, not your self-control. This is a dangerous trend.

Furthermore, the tighter gun control laws are, the more firearms are restricted to two classes of people: cops and criminals. I, for one, trust neither.

I believe the expression is "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

Anyone ever heard of Hobbes' "Leviathan"? There's some politics 101 education for a change.

Free is the people the members of which do not require arms to protect oneself from one's neighbors - not the one that has any.

Gisteron wrote: Free is the people the members of which do not require arms to protect oneself from one's neighbors - not the one that has any.

Is that why any time a government wished complete compliance with its policies, or wished to ensure the unwavering allegiance of the people they invaded, they disarmed them? To make them more "free"?

Steamboat, by enabling I meant that:

It is too easy to get worked up, pick up a gun and kill somebody. I am reminded of the incident in china on the same day as the newton massacre where a madman attacked schoolchildren...with a knife. None were killed. Contrast that with newton. And try that with a baseball bat or ironing board. Your coun.terexample fails here.

Next, guns only kill people WHEN THEY ARE USED FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE. Think about that. Baseball bats and ironing boards arre actually useful in other capacities besides murder.

As a former soldier and educated redneck, I am well versed in gun culture. I grew up with them. I still have some. But this whiole deal, nationwide, has gotten out of hand. Military grade weapons were never intended for civilians. The founding fathers could not have envisioned this situation we are in. And as far as the 2nd amendment goes, people like to leave off the 'well regulated militia' part, like the national guard, of which I was a member, when talking about it. I don't think it applies to civvies that much at all.

Saw a great thing recently that said "oh, you need an assault rifle for hunting... Why? Are you afraid the deer are going to shoot back?"

So, who gets to decide who can possess which weapons?

Me.

Desolous wrote: Me.

I'm okay with that.

I had the same discussion with a room full of texans, most of whos family own at least 2 guns. And while I have nothing against texans or americans in generall ( love you guys ), I (and most germans like me) cannot understand the american obsession with weapons. While I am ok wih the right to bear arms to defend yourself, you do not an AK 47 or any machine gun to do so. Nore do you need it to hunt.

I don't hunt. To me, its only sporting if your game can shoot back. Otherwise its just target practice, unless you wanna go to it with a knife or tomahawk or something.

Because of this:

Desolous wrote: I don't hunt.

Let me inform you why this:

Desolous wrote: To me, its only sporting if your game can shoot back.

is a little ludicrous.

The animals humans hunt have the advantage of the full benefit of their entire evolutionary experience, while humans have dulled their primal natures and senses to the point of near non-existence.

Ludicrous? I think not. You think humans got to be the apex predators by being evolutionary tards? Think again.

Edit: saw that we have 'dulled our senses'. So what? When my 7 year old can go out and slay a rhino with the pull of a trigger, what does his evolutionary sense or the animals for that matter have anything to do with it anymore? We don't need those things. We have technology.

steamboat28 wrote:

Gisteron wrote: Free is the people the members of which do not require arms to protect oneself from one's neighbors - not the one that has any.

Is that why any time a government wished complete compliance with its policies, or wished to ensure the unwavering allegiance of the people they invaded, they disarmed them? To make them more "free"?

Gisteron wrote: Anyone ever heard of Hobbes' "Leviathan"? There's some politics 101 education for a change.