TTP ,

But it was war. So you compare a country which never had any war on his soil since the civil war and Europe which had experienced 2 Wolrd wars.

That’s an interesting figure’s manipulation , but you were kinding right?

We had a really REALLY nasty war about 150 years ago. Pretty interesting history there, too. More Americans died in the civil war than in all other wars combined.

There wouldn’t have been a civil war had the militia not existed. The South had enough armed citizens to put up a fight against the US army.

Reasons and outcomes aside, the fact that it happened, and went on for so long, and was SO close, shows the power of the militia, and the armed citizens. If the South had better justification—-not needed slavery—the north would not have had the support, and would have lost.

nobody’s going to invade us. you could make the whole US military disappear, and still nobody would be able to invade. The amount of armed ciotizens is absolutly staggering–most people collect so many guns, that, should they need to use them in defense of the country, they’d have enough to arm the people that DON’T have guns!

The scope of it all is such that SHOULD the government ever pass a law banning the ownership of all guns, it could not be enforced.
IF what was done in Australia or England happened in the US…it simply couldn’t happen…it’s not comprehensable. the govenrment would KNOW they would bring about war. They wold be passing a law for which it was impossible to enforce. A hundred million people saying in unison “from my cold, dead, hands” is not something the US government is going to contend with by force.
If somehow, people in power passed such a law, you would see gun owners gather in DC in numbers not seen before on this planet, multiple millions would march–weapons in hand–through the capital, and unseat the people in power.

After all, that’s the reason we have to guns. To make sure we can keep them.

Yes, they were wacko’s. But people who believe in animal rights are not. (same argument as the one above). Don’t be shocked for what I’m now going to say, but this is what’s animal rights is about.
1. First there were civil rights (French Revolution), restricted for citizens only (racial disputes)
2. Then there were human rights (WWII) = all men/women are equal (giving rights as well to the black)
3. Now is the time for animal rights. If we are not allowed to distinct people from the fact that they have different colour, why should we distinct animals from human race. They can suffer as well. (P. Singer) Should animals hence be allowed to vote? Ofcourse not.

You see, here’s a difference in philosiphy.
Animals should be treated humanely, I agree, I’m an animal lover–I probably have more animals than any one else on this board. I also have a B.S. degree in zoology.
I don’t know about “rights”. To me, a right is something that is “given” to someone or something, and that something has an understandig of it somehow, consiously or subconciously. I’m not sure if I, or anyone else, could say that animals have “”rights”.

I do NOT repeat NOT, support animal RIGHTS groups, because they contort the good will of many for their purposes. Animal WELFARE groups, on the other hand, would be ok.
Animals should not be tortured, or slaughterd in painful methods. They should not be alowed to be mistreated, or neglected.
I agree with all that.

However, organizations like the Humane society of America, or PETA, have entirely different things in mind. People support and join these groups, simply because they want to prevent cruelty to animals–and who wouldn’t, it’s a noble cause?

these groups have a perverse idea of what rights animals have.
Anyone have a dog or cat? They want it dead. Birds, fish, reptiles, pet rats…? All must be exterminated. All pets that are wild animals, not domesticated, will also require euthanasia.

Think I’m full of it?

here’s their philosiphy:
All domestic animals are products of human intervention in the natural world, and therefore not legitimate parts of the ecosystem, and undeserving of a place in the world. All animals captured or bred for human purposes have been robbed of their ability to survive in the wild, and have been confined, tortured, against their will in captivity, so, to relieve them of this torment, they must all be killed–for releasing them would damage the environment.

All domestic animals which mankind has developed for food or other use are simply results of mankind’s evil perversion of nature, and must die. With all domestic animals out of the way, mankind can now feed every last human on earth, using crops that once fed cattle to now feed the starving.

ALL animals will live in nature, All dog breeds will be gone, same with domestic cats, birds, cattle, horses, goats, sheep, pigs, and ducks–no more wool, milk cheese, meat, horse riding, leather, KFC, BBQ.

The people at PETA have spoken: If they had it their way, they’d kill your dog, take your wool sweater, and never let you have Ice cream again.

Then, they’d feed all the starving masses with al the spare grain and corn….until the starving people had kids…and being that they relied on other people to feed them , were unbable to feed their grandkids…so instead of a million people starving to death, we have a billion….

I love animals, I keep dozens at home. I eat meat. I would ike to see slaughterhouses kill with as lttle pain as possible. I don’t want tosee animals treated like pure commodities. It bothers me. they DO have feelings too.

But don’t equate them with human rights. We’re animals, yes, but animals are NOT humans. Simply put: We go first, all others second. It is our duty as Species #1 to be responsible, however, and some people seem to be ignorant to that.

Yes, possible, but you still haven’t answered my original question: the US constitution is based on liberal ideas (philosopically so no political tree-hugging sh!t): Kant, Montesqieu, Locke, Hobbes (probably Kant most of all, even more than Locke). The founders of the constitution were ‘liberals’, which meant they took distance from the Judeo-Christian values, which they found themselves to be backward and fundamentalistic (I’m not saying this, in contrary). Religion is allowed, but has no “constiutional meaning”, and is restricted to the private level, to ensure state and religion are sepperated.
So theoretically, ‘conservatives’ in America who don’t want to change the constitution are actually ‘liberals’. Paradox: Bush is considered to be a conservative, however, he wants to change the constitution to disallow gay-marriage. Same with Reagan.

The Constutition hasn’t changed since 1783, only ammendments have been made. But times have changed indeed, as you pointed out. The people who want to change the constitution though, are politically conservative. The US constitution is quite socialist in this matter: everyone should have the right on social aid (not the duty of the gov’t!!). Semantic crap you say, maybe, but this proves that the US in theory is not a a-social state where people are not to be helped by the gov’t. The people who want to change the constitution are the conservatives, not the liberals.

Well, at the time, the US constitutiona was liberal. However, I think you have a bit of a misunderstanding of certain aspects of it. There was ans never has been a separation of church and state, as is often spoken of. The same letter from Thomas jefferson that coined the phrase “separation fo church and state” also said that “the State must be kept OUT of the church, but god help us if the church is kept out of the state.” (not an EXACT QUOTE, but close)

The “separation” was not to “Remove” it fromt he government. IT was always intended to be the basis of our law. The separation was there to ensure that the gov. could not, and would not, impose a mandatory religion, (Church of England).

Bush does NOT want to change the constitution to stop gay marriage. Another myth perpetuated by the US media…
Ticks me off.
the Constitution never mentions that marriage is only between a man and woman–nobody would have ever considered a gay marriage as a possibility back then. IT does, however, by a clause I cannot remember(..fair faith and credit clause???) ensure that ANY binding agreement, or marriage, granted in one state, will be recognized in all states.
HENCE: The people of california may choose to allow gay marriage, whilst the people of North Carolina, being far more conservative, and far more in line with christian beliefs, would NEVER vote for their state to allow gay marriage.
BECAUSE the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FORCES all states to accept marriages from ALL STATES, states that DO NOT want gay marriage will be FORCED to accept gay marriages from other states, when the whole purpose of allowsing states to vote for gay marriage is to allow states that want it to have it, and states that don’t, to NOT have it…
THAT, is a paradox. The only solution is to constitutionally define the term Marriage. If a Marriage is only between a man and a woman–as it was ALWAYS intended by the founders of the Constitution–then there is no problem. A state that wants it can allow it, and other states won’;t be forced to accept it. They get their ceremony, their benifits, etc. People in more conservative states don’t have to put up with it. Everyone’s happy!

As far as the fed’s concerned, they are not in a marriage, but rather a civil union. But that’s the federal government, the state can call it whatever they want.

I always have problems with Americans using the word “liberal”. Liberal doesn’t mean “leftist”, ok? AFAIK liberalism is what the American society represents, namely freedom. Moore is not a communist, he’s a liberal, but so is Bush. It’s true that liberals want to increase the succes of their company, but not at the cost of society. Liberalism, which is economically nothing more than “utilitarism”,.

You have a problem? why? Do you not understand that Americans use certain words differently than even the British? Liberal and Conservative mean different things in our country. There’s the basic definition, lieral meaning generous, conservative meaning in a manner that conserves–liberal spender, someone who isn’t careful with their money, conservative spender; someone who is frugal.

Then th epolitical definition:
A conservative is one who wants to maintain the original intent of the founders of the country, and uphold the constitution.

A liberal is usually someone who feels more free to alter the constitution, as they feel things are different now, and that warrents different values.

That is the basic definition fo what they are in the US.
In more detail, the idealogy of a conservative in america is as follows:
Uphold the constituition, the declaration of Independence, and all the ideals put forth in those documents. The founders of the US understood what was just and right, and what mankind required to be truely free, and set that as the basis for the constitution–regardless if they themselves followed them or not. It is understood that the basis of our laws were judeo-christian values, and as such, the country should uphold the morals set forth in such values.
The primary goal in the US is for the individual to hold the power, and to keep the government in check. True conservatives favor minimal taxes, and less government control. A true free market is not possible, but as close to free as possible is a goal of true conservatives.

A liberal in the US is usually someone who feels there needs to be change. The rules of the country were written over 200 years ago, and for that fact, we need to re-interpret the laws and their intentions. Most liberals favor taxation, and increased government jurisdiction over all aspects of life. This increases the size of government. Liberals tend to use government money and power to do more for more people. They are big on social programs. Liberals are usually less apt to hold the government to the judeo-christian values that conservatives do. They are more open to things that have been, historically frowned upon by those of christian faith: homosexuality, abortion, and now cloning and embryonic stem cell research.

conservatives want to the government to have as little to do with their lives as possible, understanding that the original intent was for the government to be involved in interstate trade, and national defense, and not much else.
Conservatives believe that you are on your own. do not rely on the government. It may help you, but ultimatly, you future is dependant on your self-determination.

Liberals want the government to do what it can to help as many people as possible. They want people with more money to be taxed more, in order for the poorer people to have a better life. They favor redistribution of wealth in order to make life better for more people. Some people are borninto a better situation than others, and that’s not fair. They do not start the race in the same place, so the government should give them a head start.

ALL the way to the right is anarchy, all the way to the left is socialism and communism. The American conservative is on the right side, the American Liberal is on the left.

The primary reason for me to resent many liberal agendas is that they often wish to infringe on rights that I hold to be inalienable–they CAN’T take them away. The fredom of speech, the right to bear arms. There are many of them who would take the constitutional rights away if given the chance.

Well, certainly based on both culture and history.
In Europe weapons most of time brought death and destruction along many wars.
It’s not part of our culture anyway. Even a 12 gauje for squail hunting requires a license here.
I’m convinced that someone who have a gun in his pocket or under is pillow , under some circuntances will use it: starnge noise in the yard at night , argument with a mad driver etc…

Actually, the owning of a firearm is a tremendous responsibility. The irresponsible use of such a firearm results in very severe punishment. In some states, you can shoot anybody on your property at night, assumption is they are they to do no good. MOST states require you to feel as if your life is in danger, and escape is impossible, and the intruder is IN your home, for the shooting to be legitimate. If someone is breaking into a window in your house, and you shoot them, you go to jail for murder or manslaughter. Of course, in most rural areas, the law tends to be more flexible, under certain situations(they had an axe, or kept coming when they saw you had a gun).

When you have a concealed to carry permit–a permit to carry a concealed handgun–the responsibilities are far greater. You are held to a higher standard, and are expected to use your weapon with more care than even a police officer.

I have to agree, the simpsons and futurama are some of the best satire ever. People underestimate South Park, and for shame. South Park is home ot some of the filthiest humor on the planet, but embraces some of the highest moral ground on TV. Sure, it farts, kills, and mutilates to get there, but in the end, the message is pretty good. Jesus gets whooped by Satan in a fight, and only one person bets on jesus–Satan. Perfect.

I don’t agree with them all the time, but I tend to think the message they give is fairly conservative, even though they ridicule EVERYONE!

the Simpsons and Futurama poke fun at so many people it’s impossible to tell their agenda–could it be they have NO agenda?? They are very fair in their ridicule, King of the hill is awesome, it portrays the middle aged, white conservative man, poking fun at him and his beliefs, as well as showing ithem in a positive light.

South park, and MAtt Groening have said worse things about more people than Moore ever could–and they get little heat because they do it in a way which is perfectly acceptable–they are equal oppertunity destroyers.

Do they still make futurama? or is it only in re-runs. That has to be the funniest cartoon ever.

-Why do you own a weapon ?
Basically, and ultimately, because I WANT to. I own a gun because I enjoy target shooting. I went hunting once, didn’t see a deer, and still enjoyed it. I will do it again. I also like to be able to defend myself, and my family, should I need to. The rifle is for hunting/plinking, the handgun is for target shooting, but mainly defense.

– Do you plan to use it?
I use them all the time, in target shooting. I assume you mean shooting at a person, in that case, I hope not. However, I am fully confident that if placed into that situtation–those of which I make every possible effort to avoid–I would be able to use the gun in a manner that would help extricate me or my family safely.

-Don’t you think that the fact to own a gun can drive you in a situation where you will have to use it?
No. Owning a gun does not make one WANT to use it to shoot anybody.

– Don’t you agree with the FACT that there is way more people dying in gun fights in the US than in any other similar democracy in the world? In this case it’s not twisted speeches or whatever but just figures.

Probably. Not that legislation will stop the violence.
Statistics are very VERY suceseptible to misreading in these cases.
First of all, most criminal use of guns is by illegally obtained guns.
Second of all, statistics showing guns being “used” only show incedents in which the weapon is actually FIRED. Guns are used THOUSANDS of times in defensive situations every day in the prevention of violence/criminal acts. In the hands of responsible people, gun use does not entail simply firing the weapon. A gun(just like the ICBM) is most effective as a deterrant. Once the mugger/theif/rapist sees that you have a gun, you don’t need to fire a shot.

Also, in countries where guns have been banned, Austrailia, England, etc. Gun crime HAS dropped. In America, it has stayed about the same. Looks Damning, huh? However, in those countries, OVERALL violent crime has risen, where in America, violent crime has decreased. Gun-related crime is NOT separate from other forms of violent crime. In America, guns are over a thousand times MORE LIKELY to be used to PREVENT a crime than they are to be USED in a crime.

The simple fact is that people who are farmiliar with guns(rifles, handguns, shotguns, etc.), and know how they operate, and how to fire them, AND respect the capabilities of these weapons(sorry for the run-on), and teach their children to respect them, have little or nothing to “fear” of their own weapons. I knew Daddy had a rifle in the closet, and a handgun in the drawer. I knew where the ammo was. I knew also not to touch the thing unless he was there.

Sure there are people that have tons of guns and probably shouldn’t. Look at some of the “seperatist” cults out there. Neo-Nazis planning for a Race war, Religious cults gettin’ ready for armageddon. Big deal, they’re few and far between.

Want a wake up call?
go to one of the thousands of gun shows all over the country. You’ll see thousands of people walking around buying and selling anything from an AR-15, to a shotgun, to the stuff you need to make your own ammo. Hell, wiht the right permits, you can buy a full-auto .50 machine gun. Even better, any upstanding US citizen with no skeletons in their closet can walk in , get a instant(10 minute) background check, and walk out with a Barret “light” 50–a 50 caliber sniper rifle with the ability to shoot accuratly darn near a mile away. Why? because the government has no right to tell perfectly good people what NOT to do as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else.

Those kids in columbine bought their weapons at a gun show? no… we have to ban Gun shows now….!
Stupid.
You can go to ANY walmart, buy a hunting rifle and ammo, and go on a shooting spree just like them. If I wanted, I could buy some fertilizer and mix it with fuel oil, and blow up the building of my choice! I could pull a branch off a tree and use THAT!
We don’t do that stuff. And it’s not because the government keeps us from doing it–it’s because we know better.

Sometimes, these things happen, the oklahoma city bombing, columbine, the NY subway massacre, the DC “sniper” etc. Banning ammonium nitrate, guns and gunshows isn’t the solution to the problems. The people that DO these things are not going to be affected by laws.

In my parents neighborhood, almost EVERYONE owns several guns and rifles–it’s a rural area, miles from the police station. In the 8+ years I have lived here, not ONE house has ever been broken into during the night. There was one string of robberies last year. All during the day. Nobody is crazy enough to dare break into an OCCUPIED house in rural America–they wait until everybody leaves. That alone prevents tens of thousands of possible crimes in this state alone. Criminals know that there is a VERY good chance, nearly 100% that the owners of the house own guns. they also know that they will not hesistate to use them if someone’s in their house or on their property. The criminals that don’t know, or are so high on crack they don’t care, usually end up dead, or found later in a hospital with gunshot wounds.

If I was a criminal in a country that bans guns, what do I have to think about? Do the people in this house have a big dog, or a big heavy wooden stick? Well then, I’ll just buy an illegal gun on the black market. Being that I-a criminal– have no regard for the law anyway, what’s to stop me? I enter the house, and I can feel very confident that I will have a powerful advantage over the occupant.

In the Us, a criminal has to know that they’re taking a chance every time they enter an occupied house. Even better, in states like this one, they have to wonder if the person they’re about to mug in the street is carrying a concealed handgun.

Look in washington DC. Handguns are banned from the city. Guess what? Highest violent crime in the freaking country.

It’s not that we have a “gun culture” in america. We have a culture based on independence. Part of independence is the freedom to be in charge of one’s own destiny, and to be able to protect yourself from oppression in all forms. It is an inalienable right, to be free to defend oneself. Part of that is the right to keep and bear arms. Politicians try to minimize it, but the right for all citizens to keep and bear arms must have been pretty important to the founders of the nation, since they put it in the NUMBER TWO SPOT:

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If the government has ALL the guns, the government can be in total control.
If the People have guns, the government cannot have total control.

Ultimatly, that’s why it’s part of our culture–self determinitationat a nationa and individual level.