Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: The antidote for civilization
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2013-01-16, 06:55 PM | [Ignore Me] #452 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16...tly/?hpt=us_c1
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/po...html?hpt=us_c1 It's not much, basically just background checks on mental state of mind and campaign on safety and education what to do at gunthreats, but it's a start. Of course NRA pretends the world just ended. Now. How does Democracy work again? Ah yes, majority rule of the people (people vote for this sort of party thing and the one with most votes gets to rule, remember?). http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/po...html?hpt=us_c1
Last edited by Figment; 2013-01-16 at 06:58 PM. |
|||
|
2013-01-16, 07:02 PM | [Ignore Me] #453 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
Oh btw, something some of you lot who think Hitler banned civilians from owning guns might want to read up on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...an_Weapons_Act
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/fi...rt_fordham.pdf pages 21 and 22. The nazi's significantly expanded gun ownership. Particularly for their own group. Last edited by Figment; 2013-01-16 at 07:10 PM. |
|||
|
2013-01-16, 07:26 PM | [Ignore Me] #454 | ||
I don't think he realizes that our representative democracy is also a constitutional one. Or how the US executive, legislative and judicial branches work. That said, there wasn't a whole lot that surprised me in the announcement today. The real struggle is about to begin with the legislators.
On the nazi thing...yes. They modified existing laws to better suit their needs...giving guns to those they deemed fit, and making it illegal for those they saw as undesirable. What exactly were we supposed to glean from your links? That governments will arm those that agree with them, and disarm those they want to get rid of? Yeah...
__________________
FAC:"It sounds pretty bad..." SFC Jerry 'Mad Dog' Shriver: “No, no. I’ve got ‘em right where I want ‘em – surrounded from the inside.“ Last edited by belch; 2013-01-16 at 07:56 PM. |
|||
|
2013-01-17, 05:34 AM | [Ignore Me] #455 | |||
|
||||
|
2013-01-17, 09:33 AM | [Ignore Me] #456 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
Yes and you do admit that the nazis did not start with a weapon grab as has been suggested by some on your side of the debate before? What they did was empower their people and others of German origin and remove power from very specific groups of people. (Just as I said before).
Pretty much btw, what the racism in the 2nd Amendment's Militia Act did originally: only white males were priviliged to have arms. However, I don't believe slavery was exiled because they were granted the privilige to have arms themselves. It was done on the basis of democratic voting power. You also realise that in the current system, you're only empowering those who WANT to wield weapons? Not everybody, only those who feel there's a need for weapons. Which means if certain groups arm themselves, others become suspicious of them, grow paranoid and feel forced to go along in the M.A.D. scheme to ensure none of these groups get the most weapons and thus power. That leads to paranoia, tensions and frictions and the idea that one must arm oneself to prevent attacks from the other (much like USA vs Russia). Lack of weapons on all sides and thus lack of threat by power imbalance leads to mutual trust, despite of disagreement and therefore to concensus. Look at the EU. Every time there was an arms race or peen battle, we ended up going to war. Since we've demilitarised and started cooperating, wars within the EU have not only not happened, they've been banned to the land of fairy tales. The best way of assuring peace is by dividing political power such that nobody feels capable of a single group's power grab. By creating power bases based on force rather than political support, you create the chance that a group will try to conquer its way to power. Last edited by Figment; 2013-01-17 at 09:35 AM. |
||
|
2013-01-17, 11:04 AM | [Ignore Me] #457 | ||
Now that is just ridiculous. Who has suggested the nazi's instituted a weapons ban? That a democratically elected government changed existing law to oppress those it deemed undesirable just doesn't occur to him as being a bad thing at all...
I know you think he is no fool, Baneblade, but this is obvious and glaring evidence to the contrary. The icing? The EU has evidently banished war to the land of fairy tales. Which explains a lot about his ideas here...he is obviously living in that land of fairy tales. |
|||
|
2013-01-17, 07:20 PM | [Ignore Me] #458 | |||||||
Lieutenant General
|
And some people offering themselves at those rates too.
Are you just putting tons of random words on completely unrelated topics in my mouth in a row? That's... interesting debating strategy, to say the least.
I'm sorry DJ, but I don't trust a busdriver with the national budget. And no, I don't trust a banker with it either. I'd rather take a mathematician and engineer even over an economic... Analytical thinking is for Math B specialists, not for Math A.
I guess there's one positive thing for you to get out this post: at least you don't have to be worried that this post qualifies you for your so hated intellectuals group. |
|||||||
|
2013-01-18, 11:21 AM | [Ignore Me] #459 | |||||
I suspect that if you keep responding, he will continue to insult you, take offense when you return in kind, and ultimately put you on ignore so he feels safe to argue with himself or someone that does not put up much of a fight. |
||||||
|
2013-01-18, 01:54 PM | [Ignore Me] #460 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
For the record btw, what I'm criticizing here is people who elect a government, but then claim that it's not a government they need to listen to if it doesn't agree with them on each point, because a majority other than their own got to decide otherwise.
Constitution aside - as constitutions can change under force majeur - if a majority is for regulation of some sort, you can't just go and say "screw the system, I'll shoot anyone who tries to enforce the democratically established law on me". You can't say "everyone has to obey the law when I make it" and then when someone else makes it ignore it completely. THAT is not how a democracy - even a Republic - functions. I've criticised your system heavily on the basis of being the largest minority rule in a seesaw system on a lot of occassions. Who dominates that minority is irrelevant for the principle of the discussion. In the case of the Republicans, it's the elite 1% and the radical elements who have more power than they should have as they influence an approximate ~50% party, despite having the actual voting power of 1 to 20% of the populace. It's a very corrupting situation, since parties will start to ignore the people that would vote to not lose votes in the fringe parties to gain just that margin they need to in. Since the middle group isn't that big, the most important groups to keep on board and motivated to vote are very specific target groups with very specific agendas. If your system had been based on a majority coalition, you'd be more likely to actually fulfill the wishes of the majority and minorities, while being able to pretty much ignore the radicals. The only time you have to start fearing the radicals is when you're upsetting too many people with bad management. If you want to claim that 99% of your populace needs guns to deal with 1% of your own richest populace, then you're just being ridiculous. You can simply vote for another party that is NOT dominated by that 1% and change the laws to restrict that 1% group's power to exploit the system and in fact change the system to be fair again. What happens here is that your first-past-the-post / electoral college system created a voting system that's only viable for two parties. If those parties are then prone to corruption, then you're giving that 1% the chance to become dominant and rule. However, I don't see any 1% elitist group send forces after anyone. The system can easily be changed in a single electoral vote, all you need to do is convince enough people the alternative third party is better, make it big enough and central enough to force others to pick them to gain a majority coalition. Then demand vote system reforms that benefit small splinter groups. And you're done. You could be a normal democracy instead of an elitarian Republic. |
||
|
2013-01-18, 02:25 PM | [Ignore Me] #461 | ||
Missing the point of constitutional democracy. Missing the point of separate branches of government, systems of checks and balances, and the relation of political parties and their ability to influence government. If that was an attempt to prove what he does know about US politics, it is misguided to say the least.
Why does Figment think he has the answer to America's political issues? Is it merely ignorance, or a manifestation of narcissism in the extreme? Wouldn't he better serve his own country by tackling on their issues with immigrants? Or figuring out their own budget? |
|||
|
2013-01-19, 08:49 AM | [Ignore Me] #462 | |||
Major General
|
|
|||
|
2013-01-20, 06:26 AM | [Ignore Me] #463 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
Rating labels! How come we didn't think of that before?!
No, teaching a 6 year old to use real weaponry instead "for sports/to be ready for the real dangerous world" and showing daddy/mommy fires guns all the time is much more impacting in normalising the presence and use of weapons. How about the psychological effect of people telling their children they will be oppressed and tortured and invaded and stripped from rights whenever they lose guns? Especially the effect of people being so obsessed with doomsday scenarios they bring up their kids in their paranoid fantasy world? What about the psychological torment of bullying that can push people over the edge while they have parents with guns at home and know how to get to them in case of 'self-defense'? What about the chances self-defense turns into pro-active aggression? No. Those are not the real issues... Parental and environmental influence is much more important, but hey. "Everyone is responsible and good upbringer just because a few people are, let's not even test their psychological state of mind (nor those around them that may get access to the weapons in question), before handing them and with it everyone in their direct vicinity weapons because a bunch of non-knowledge of today wielding people designed an already 200 years obsolete militia regulation document once". Last edited by Figment; 2013-01-20 at 06:33 AM. |
||
|
2013-01-20, 11:55 AM | [Ignore Me] #464 | ||
First Lieutenant
|
Safe and responsible gun ownership and usage failed to be exercised on "Gun Appreciation Day" yesterday.
As for the attack on video games, it is a diversion to the discussion of material conditions in America compared to countries with lower crime rates, as well as the discussion of availability and access to firearms compared to availability and access to mental health care.
__________________
|
||
|
2013-01-20, 01:41 PM | [Ignore Me] #465 | ||
I read this as I cleaned my Glock 21 (Austrian manufactured), thru which I shot 2x50 round boxes of PPU .45 ACP (Serbian manufactured)...
I mean, don't be afraid of this guy: Stabbed by cat torturer at Bed, Bath and Beyond Be afraid of me and my "WMD-in-a-pistol-Glock". There was also a fatal car crash somewhere. That shit should be stopped too. Privately owned cars that is. |
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|