Racism linked with gun ownership and opposition to gun control in white Americans

Oct 31, 2013

A new study has found that higher levels of racism in white Americans is associated with having a gun in the home and greater opposition to gun control policies.

The research, published in PLoS One, was led by Dr Kerry O'Brien from The University of Manchester and Monash University and used data from a large representative sample of white US voters.

After accounting for numerous other factors such as income, education and political ideology, the researchers found that for each one point increase (on a scale from one to five) in symbolic there was a 50 percent increase in the odds of having a gun in the home and a 28 percent increase in support for policies allowing people to carry concealed guns.

Each one point increase in symbolic racism (a modern measure of anti-black racism) was also associated with a 27 percent increase in the odds of opposing bans on hand guns in the home. After accounting for those who already had a gun in the home, the odds were reduced to a non-significant 17 percent increase. However, the authors note that this reduction is unsurprising as opposition to bans on guns equates to self interest on behalf of those who already own a gun and do not wish to give it up. And racism was already strongly associated with having a gun in the home.

The research was stimulated by gun control debates in the US after mass shootings such as the Sandy Hook tragedy, and research showing that with all things being equal black Americans are more likely to be shot than whites. The most recent figures show that there are approximately 38,000 gun related deaths in the US each year. With other research suggesting that having a gun in the home is related to a 2.7 and 4.8 fold increase in the risk of a member of that home dying from homicide or suicide, respectively.

Dr O'Brien said: "Coming from countries with strong gun control policies, and a 30-fold lower rate of gun-related homicides, we found the arguments for opposing gun control counterintuitive and somewhat illogical. For example, US whites oppose gun control to a far greater extent than do blacks, but whites are actually more likely to kill themselves with their guns, than be killed by someone else. Why would you keep them? So we decided to examine what social and psychological factors predict gun ownership and opposition to gun control."

Conservatism, anti-government sentiment, party identification, being from a southern state, were also associated with opposition to gun controls, but the association between racism and the gun-related outcomes remained after accounting for these factors and other participant characteristics (age, education, income, gender).

Symbolic racism supplanted old-fashioned or overt/blatant racism which was associated with open support for race inequality and segregation under 'Jim Crow Laws', but it still captures the anti-black sentiment and traditional values that underpinned blatant racism. Symbolic racism has also been found to be related to stronger opposition to policies that may benefit blacks (e.g. welfare), and greater support for policies that seem to disadvantage blacks (e.g. longer prison sentences).

Study co-author Dr Dermot Lynott, from Lancaster University, said: "We were initially surprised that no one had studied this issue before; however, the US government cut research funding for gun-related research over decade and a half ago, so research in this area has been somewhat suppressed."

Dr O'Brien said: "According to a Pew Research Center report the majority of white Americans support stricter , but the results of our study suggest that those who oppose reform tend to have a stronger racial bias, tend to be politically and ideologically conservative and from southern states, and have higher anti-government sentiment."

He added: "The study is a first step, but there needs to be more investment in empirical research around how racial bias may influence people's decisions, particularly those policies that impact on the health and wellbeing of US citizens."

Explore further: Child development expert says parents must set the tone when it comes to children's Christmas lists

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

With high-tech guns, users could disable remotely

May 21, 2013

A high-tech startup is wading into the gun control debate with a cellphone controller that would allow gun owners to know when their weapon is being moved—and disable it remotely.

Recommended for you

Consumer loyalty driven by aesthetics over functionality

13 hours ago

When designing a new car, manufacturers might try to attract consumers with more horsepower, increased fuel efficiency or a lower price point. But new research from San Francisco State University shows consumers' loyalty ...

User comments : 410

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

24volts
2.7 / 5 (26) Oct 31, 2013
Now do the same thing with black voters.... the outcome should be interesting.
progentCT
2.5 / 5 (26) Oct 31, 2013
Where is the poll of gun control advocates in which they are asked 'do you believe your superior intelligence grants you the privilege of dictating morality to others'?
rwinners
3.3 / 5 (16) Nov 01, 2013
Garbage... well, almost. Actually, I think the fear of our government and it's 'running wild' defense department and counter-terrorism department are what is behind this. Hell, look at the Congress! There are other factors too, but these two are paramount. Left or right,
If things were a bit different, I'd even say that there is a possibility of civil war in the US of A.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (23) Nov 01, 2013
US propaganda. Bullets know no race
irjsiq
2 / 5 (24) Nov 01, 2013
Combined B.S. and Balderdash = a 'hit piece' from what once was 'A Govt. Of, For, and By We The People'
An 'Aristocratic' congress, and a fraud king has made the/our govt. The Enemy of We The People, not the other-way 'round!
It has been alluded 'that congress should 'rent some backbone' . . . perhaps it is We The People who should be shopping for 'stiffer vertebrae'!
Washington represents 'repression, oppression, domination, re-election!
Washington DOES NOT Represent We The People!
We The People are on our own!

Roy J Stewart,
Phoenix AZ

VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (28) Nov 01, 2013
Look at all the Conservative Dung-Heads denying the obvious.

Once Conservative disease is exterminated from the face of the earth, human progress will proceed without limit.
Humpty
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 01, 2013
Good thing Jesus was an Israeli (white and christian) and not a jew, as jews are not allowed to own guns.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (22) Nov 01, 2013
"Good thing Jesus was an Israeli" - Humpty

Looks like Humpty is here to post pure Tea-Tard idiocy.

ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (33) Nov 01, 2013
'Liberals' can't defend themselves on the merits of their positions so they must accuse their opponents of...racism....
And 'liberals' say this site isn't biased.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (30) Nov 01, 2013
This "study" is an unbelievable fraud. Why does Phys.Org not understand the difference between a "study" and propaganda?

Symbolic racism supplanted old-fashioned or overt/blatant racism which was associated with open support for race inequality and segregation under 'Jim Crow Laws', but it still captures the anti-black sentiment and traditional values that underpinned blatant racism. Symbolic racism has also been found to be related to stronger opposition to policies that may benefit blacks (e.g. welfare), and greater support for policies that seem to disadvantage blacks (e.g. longer prison sentences).


So when they can't find actual racism they invent a new term, "symbolic racism" and define it as being against policies that they advocate.
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (25) Nov 01, 2013
"Liberals' can't defend themselves on the merits of their positions" - RyggTard

I would say not cravenly wanting the tools to murder your neighbours is pretty good evidence that you don't want to murder your neighbours.

Here in the socialist states we generally have no need to murder our neighbours. We don't cower in fear of our neighbours like our American Counterparts do.

In Tea-Tards like RyggTard, the fear and cowardice runs deep.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (27) Nov 01, 2013
For example, US whites oppose gun control to a far greater extent than do blacks, but whites are actually more likely to kill themselves with their guns, than be killed by someone else.


http://frontpagem...ite-men/ over ten times that of other races and their crime rate is off the charts, and this is indicative of a failed and out of control culture. Even if whites base their decision of gun ownership on this fact (false in general), it would be a natural reaction to events, not itself racism.

The "study" is an abject fraud.

Here in the socialist states we generally have no need to murder our neighbours. We don't cower in fear of our neighbours like our American Counterparts do.


It is only because you are all being robbed by your government equally, and are all forced to be equally poor and pathetic. When the Nazi's came to power, the crime rate plumeted too. This is a fact.
antialias_physorg
2.5 / 5 (15) Nov 01, 2013
we found the arguments for opposing gun control counterintuitive and somewhat illogical.

No. Really? Do tell.

But seriously it makes a lot of sense: You own a gun because you're afraid. And racism is driven by fear. Fear of being worth less (not worthless...but that may be part of it).
Some people just can't escape from the fact that they are (below) average. This leads to (justifiable?) low self esteem, and the only way out is to turn to "being X" (where X may be a race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, affiliation with a sports team,... whetever) as a sign of their - supposed - worth/supremacy over others.

And if everything fails it's turning to "I'm stronger than you". And as they can't make that happen physically (or mentally) their only out is: buying a gun.

VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (25) Nov 01, 2013
"This "study" is an unbelievable fraud" - NumenTard

Of course NumenTard offers no evidence of Fraud.

I consider this "study" to be nothing more than a confirmation of a commonly accepted correlation between Racism and Conservatism and Conservatism and Gun Grubbing causing the correlation between Racism and Gun Grubbing.

VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (20) Nov 01, 2013
"Fear of being worth less (not worthless...but that may be part of it).
Some people just can't escape from the fact that they are (below) average. This leads to (justifiable?) low self esteem, and the only way out is to turn to "being X" (where X may be a race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, affiliation with a sports team,... whetever) as a sign of their - supposed - worth/supremacy over others. " - Antialias

Wow... A truly excellent observation Antialias.

I tip my cap to you in appreciation.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (30) Nov 01, 2013
"This "study" is an unbelievable fraud" - NumenTard

Of course NumenTard offers no evidence of Fraud.

I consider this "study" to be nothing more than a confirmation of a commonly accepted correlation between Racism and Conservatism and Conservatism and Gun Grubbing causing the correlation between Racism and Gun Grubbing.



The notion of "symbolic racism" is the fraud and this obviously bias study is based on it. Being against welfare, opposing gun control, and disagreeing with Obama does not make one a racist.

Bill Clinton must have been a racist then for reducing those on welfare by that failed logic. Some of us on the right see implicit racism in liberals subjecting minorities to dependency via the welfare state, lowing of education standards, and ignoring and excuse making for off the chart crime rate of minorities.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (27) Nov 01, 2013
You own a gun because you're afraid.

People own firearms in the USA because they, 1) have an Constitutional right and 2) a moral right to defend their lives and property from legal and illegal plunder.
Those who would depend upon the state to protect them soon find themselves state slaves or dead.
The state has no obligation to protect anyone. It is 'settled' law.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (21) Nov 01, 2013
"Young Black Men Murder 14 Times More than Young White Men - over ten times that of other races and their crime rate is off the charts, and this is indicative of a failed and out of control culture." - NumenTard

NumenTard seems to be saying that there are legitimate reasons why white Conservatives cower in the corner with their gun in their hand.

They fear the coming of a black man.

Perhaps this is why so many of them would rather destroy their own country in order to get their black president out of the White House.

As a socialist, living in a socialist state, I frankly don't understand this Conservative Cowardice. I have no reason to fear black men in my country, or anyone else for that matter.

In any case NumenTard's observation that America is a cultural failure is right.

Uncle Sam is the poster child for Failure.

VendicarE
3 / 5 (21) Nov 01, 2013
People own firearms in the USA because they, 1) have an Constitutional right

You have the constitutional right to eat your own dung too. Is that the explanation you offer for Tea-Tarders like yourself eating your own?

"a moral right to defend their lives and property from legal and illegal plunder" - RyggTard

There are no such thing as moral rights my little dung eater, just as there is no such thing as an immoral right.

Rights are rights, and they are granted by society to itself.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (20) Nov 01, 2013
"The notion of "symbolic racism" is the fraud" - NumenTard

Imploding immigration reform is the Tea Party's next goal

http://www.kansas...link=cpy
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (31) Nov 01, 2013
Places like Chicago and D.C. have the toughest gun laws but also the highest crime rate. This fact alone exposes the incompetence of liberal anti-gun policy. A rational person would then conclude that gun laws do not reduce such crime as they don't effect criminals at all by definition, and thus cannot protect you.

The government is simply not competent to protect you. Self protection is an inalienable right, and gun ownership is a constitutional right.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (20) Nov 01, 2013
"Those who would depend upon the state to protect them soon find themselves state slaves or dead." - RyggTard

Yes, that seems to be the way it works in Somalia and America.

Here in the socialist states, things are quite a bit different.

Here is how the Japanese prep for a trip to America.

http://www.youtub...WBjUUN3z
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (21) Nov 01, 2013
"Places like Chicago and D.C. have the toughest gun laws but also the highest crime rate. " - NumenTard

That couldn't possibly be, because guns are so common in the U.S. due to the corrupt NRA, that criminals have no trouble getting one could it?

Or are those street thugs running their own gun manufacturing companies?

It is self evident that they are... .Isn't it TardieBoy.

They just dress up in suits and call themselves honest "business men."
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (21) Nov 01, 2013
"The government is simply not competent to protect you" - NumenTard

I smell fear and cowardice coming from NumenTard.

Here in the socialist states we generally don't need to be "protected", since we have very little to fear.

So cower in the corner with your gun my little cowardly American Conservative. The world is laughing at you.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (30) Nov 01, 2013
Young Black Men Murder 14 Times More than Young White Men - over ten times that of other races and their crime rate is off the charts, and this is indicative of a failed and out of control culture." - Numenon


Noumenon seems to be saying that there are legitimate reasons why white Conservatives cower in the corner with their gun in their hand.

They fear the coming of a black man.


You are a dishonest idiot as expected. Why do you think I "seem to saying that" when it is clear that I said it is NOT true in general,... it is a race card charge of liberals to demonize conservatives. Conservatives as Free Americans simply desire to protect their family in their own home, as a natural response to government incompetence in reducing high crime rate. Any rational person would be suspicious of those who would advocate against this.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (25) Nov 01, 2013
Some people just can't escape from the fact that they are (below) average.

Is this why so many in Euroland persecute Jews?
So anti believes that banning weapons would have prevented short dictators with low self-esteem from rising to power in France and Germany?
Had the people of France and Germany had the will and the firepower, maybe they could have thwarted the rise of Napoleon and Hitler, or made it more difficult. Ultimately that is the real value of an armed citizenry. Tin pot tyrants and their fellow travelers have to weigh the risk of being killed during their attempt to seize power.
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (21) Nov 01, 2013
" it is a race card charge of liberals to demonize conservatives." - NumenTard

GOP precinct chair booted after racist Daily Show interview now blasts 'gutless' Republican Party

http://www.dailyk...n-Party#

Colin Powell's former chief of staff: GOP is 'full of racists'

http://www.washin...racists/

Chisago County Republican Party publishes extremely racist Facebook post

http://blogs.city...post.php

VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (18) Nov 01, 2013
Bradlee Dean: Communists Invented Word 'Racism'

http://www.rightw...d-racism

Bradlee Dean: Gays Commit Half Of All Murders, Obama Is A 'Homo' And Maddow Is A 'Shim'

http://www.rightw...dow-shim

GOP Official Who Backs White Supremacist And Violent Groups Wants To Be Next Texas Attorney General

http://www.rightw...G6y.dpuf

Coulter: America Has Too Many Latinos

http://www.rightw...-latinos

Eagle Forum Assures Us That Bible's Mandate for 'Compassion' Does Not Include Immigrants

http://www.rightw...n9y.dpuf
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (25) Nov 01, 2013
" Ben Carson accused white liberal critics of racism.

"They're the most racist people there are," Carson told radio host Mark Levin on Monday. "Because they put you in a little category, a box: 'You have to think this way, how could you dare come off the plantation?'""
http://www.washin...-people/
"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today."

Thomas Sowell

Read more at http://www.brainy...HHGwh.99
VendicarE
3 / 5 (20) Nov 01, 2013
"Is this why so many in Euroland persecute Jews?" - RyggTard

No, it is why there were so many KKKlansmen in AmeriKKKa burning crosses and persecuting Jews.

Aren't you a member, Tardieboy?

You sure smell like one.

ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (26) Nov 01, 2013
The cure for racism is becoming conservative.
As soon as any minority becomes a conservative, they are no longer considered a black, brown, ....They are attacked for their ideas and skin color or gender no longer matters to 'liberals'.
Why do 'liberals' fear their minorities straying from the plantation?
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (19) Nov 01, 2013
Ben Carson accused white liberal critics of racism. "They're the most racist people there are"

Carson should come live in one of our Socialist states and get away from all that American Racism.

I would even buy him a beer.

As for you RiggieTard. Stay where you are. Your work in destroying your own country is doing the rest of the world a great service.

VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (19) Nov 01, 2013
"The cure for racism is becoming conservative." - RyggTard

Colin Powell's former chief of staff: GOP is 'full of racists'

http://www.washin...racists/

Ahahahahaha... RiggTard.

You are such a buffoon.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (18) Nov 01, 2013
"As soon as any minority becomes a conservative, they are no longer considered a black, brown" - RyggTard

I see, so According to RyggTard, racist conservatives are only racists toward black liberals, Hispanic liberals, etc.

What a Buffoon.

MR166
2 / 5 (24) Nov 01, 2013
And yet the cities with highest per capita ownership of legal hand guns have the lowest crime rates including murder. I guess you are considered a "Racist" if you are a law abiding citizen.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (20) Nov 01, 2013
As Firearm Ownership Rises, Florida Gun Murders Increasing

http://fcir.org/2...reasing/
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (17) Nov 01, 2013
Life in the Capitalist American Paradise.

Michael David Dunn didn't like the volume of music coming from the SUV parked next to him at a Jacksonville gas station. So he yelled over the bass vibrating from a boxed speaker in the back of a red Dodge Durango and told the men inside to quiet down.

"Kill him," one of the Durango's passengers responded, according to Dunn's account. Dunn, who is white, said one of the young black men in the SUV reached down for a shotgun. Dunn pulled out a 9-millimeter Taurus handgun from his glove box. He fired eight or nine times.

The bullets sliced through the rear passenger door, striking 17-year-old Jordan Davis in the chest and legs. A high school senior with plans to go into the military, Davis died before arriving at the hospital.

....

Murders by firearms have increased dramatically in the state since 2000, when there were 499 gun murders, according to data from Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Gun murders have since climbed 38 percent — with 691 murders committed with guns in 2011.

MR166
2 / 5 (24) Nov 01, 2013
I would venture a guess that 90% of the gun deaths are related to gangs and or drug sales. Mexican drug cartels have invaded the US and are in total control of some areas.

A small percentage of deaths are caused by mentally ill teenage boys that have had all reality wiped from their brains by violent video games. If you want to go for "High Score" you have to go where the most defenseless people are. The combination of no mental health care facilities and violent video games is deadly.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (23) Nov 01, 2013
Look at all the Conservative Dung-Heads denying the obvious.

Once Conservative disease is exterminated from the face of the earth, human progress will proceed without limit.


Indeed, because there are no problems with any other ideology (read made up set of convenient fictions to allay fears and promote cohesiveness and cooperation) which is a problem for human progress (however you define that)...

As far as the study goes...well it's pretty spurious at best and at worst blatantly intellectually dishonest.

You get to define your premise (someone please give me an OBJECTIVE definition of " symbolic racism), which is an opinion (racism is a made up human concept, it doesn't exist as a real entity outside human minds, it is not objective reality), and then ask questions about it in order to label people and put them in a box. Oooooh the irony...
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2013
People own firearms in the USA because they, 1) have an Constitutional right and 2) a moral right to defend their lives and property from legal and illegal plunder.

1) That you have the right to do something doesn't mean you have to do it.
2) If you don't realize the deep contradiction in putting the words 'moral' and 'property' in the same sentence then you haven't thought about...well...anything much at all in your life to any depth, have you?
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (20) Nov 01, 2013
1) That you have the right to do something doesn't mean you have to do it.


Yes, and? You realize the reverse is also true. That you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should refrain from doing it. I fail to see the point here, please clarify.

If you don't realize the deep contradiction in putting the words 'moral' and 'property' in the same sentence then you haven't thought about...well...anything much at all in your life to any depth, have you?


He hasn't thought the same way YOU do about YOUR life. That he doesn't do that isn't a failure on his part to be YOU.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (26) Nov 01, 2013
words 'moral' and 'property' in the same sentence

You don't think it is moral to protect your life (property)?
Euros may not believe they own themselves since they have been subjugated for centuries to be conditioned to believe their lives (their property) belong to the state.
If you don't first own yourself, then you can't own any wealth you create.
That you have the right to do something doesn't mean you have to do it.

If rights are not exercised, they wither and are easily usurped by the state.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (21) Nov 01, 2013
"You don't think it is moral to protect your life (property)?" - RyggTard

Of course not. A rich man murdering a starving man for stealing a loaf of bread is not a moral act.

The fact that you believe it is, shows how immoral and disgusting you Randite/Libertarians are.

You are Filth.

MR166
2 / 5 (23) Nov 01, 2013
Europe only has a few years left before it's culture totally disappears. Unchecked immigration and an exploding welfare state will soon turn it into a 3rd world country.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (24) Nov 01, 2013
Here in the socialist states we generally have no need to murder our neighbours. We don't cower in fear of our neighbours like our American Counterparts do. - VenDickare


Is that why people from your disgusting country risk their life to come to America on a floating door?
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 01, 2013
Of course not. A rich man murdering a starving man for stealing a loaf of bread is not a moral act.


Correction, YOU don't think it's a moral act. I don't think it's a moral act. This says nothing about whether or not it IS or ISN'T a moral act.

The fact that you believe it is, shows how immoral and disgusting you Randite/Libertarians are.


Correction. It shows they think differently than you do. This isn't a failure on their part, it simply is.

You are Filth.


Correction. He's a human being.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (26) Nov 01, 2013
"You don't think it is moral to protect your life (property)?" - RyggTard

Of course not. A rich man murdering a starving man for stealing a loaf of bread is not a moral act. - CommieFace Vendickare



Maybe not, but if that "starving man" breaks into my home or otherwise threatens my life, rather than respectively asking for help, I will end his life with moral satisfaction.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (23) Nov 01, 2013
Usually the 'starving man' straw man scenario is after decades of socialist tyranny where people are starving because the state has plundered all the wealth.
In a free market society, anyone who is starving would have dozens of charity organization to help, AND, dozens of employment opportunities to earn wealth to end his starving.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (21) Nov 01, 2013
A coincidence?

"At an October 30th press briefing, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Reps. Gwen Moore (D-WI) and Elizabeth Etsy (D-CT) called for more gun control laws, including those that would take guns from certain Americans. "
http://www.breitb...iscation

I think not.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (26) Nov 01, 2013
"The government is simply not competent to protect you" - NumenTard

I smell fear and cowardice coming from [my superior] Noumenon - Vendicare


Your response here is one an adolescent would make. It's not about fear or cowardice when the criminal has to use a weapon or attack in a pack.

In the USA the gun control issue is, for the most part, a litmus test which signals that government has acquired too much power over individuals lives.

That is why gun rights are defended so passionately here. It is not up to the government to make decisions on behalf of free citizens. If so for gun's then what else? There are an inordinate number of things the government "could" regulate and control to save lives.

Eventually intelligent citizens begin to realize that a perfectly safe and harmless society is not worth the lose of liberty necessary to maintain it.

The greatest threat to personal liberty is the 'liberal progressive', the social engineer, and their army of statisticians.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (25) Nov 01, 2013
You own a gun because you're afraid. And racism is driven by fear. Fear of being worth less (not worthless...but that may be part of it).
Some people just can't escape from the fact that they are (below) average. This leads to (justifiable?) low self esteem, and the only way out is to turn to "being X" (where X may be a race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, affiliation with a sports team,... whetever) as a sign of their - supposed - worth/supremacy over others.

And if everything fails it's turning to "I'm stronger than you". And as they can't make that happen physically (or mentally) their only out is: buying a gun.


This is likely the case for illegal use of guns in gang and street thug mentality where the purpose of the gun is for Active confrontation. However, your comment has absolutely zero to do with Passive legal gun ownership to protect one's home.

"you haven't thought about...well...anything much at all in your life to any depth, have you?"
kochevnik
1 / 5 (15) Nov 01, 2013
It seems in USA gun rights are framed somehow not progressive. That is a framejob by the media and has nothing to do with reality. Apparently the media cowboys's job in USA is to round up people into two camps of stupid. I can't understand what progress people can make being defenseless while their families and business are being attacked by thugs and mafia. I have found that the democratic party is not at all progressive, but simply spins opposite to the rethuglicans like a counterrotating gear. Democrats offer nothing new they are part of the same machine. For example Obamacare is nothing but Mittten's healthcare package, applied nationally. When people suffer Obama drones women and children abroad. When banksters cry Obama is Santa Claus. Now IBM is failing because Chinese don't want Americans spyware computers and are building their own. IBM depended upon China to same them, and now they will be too big to fail, needing an Obama bailout
freethinking
2.1 / 5 (22) Nov 01, 2013
Racism needs to be defined. Currently anyone who is white and does not Kiss Obama's rear end is considered a racist.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (20) Nov 01, 2013
Just saw a news report several weeks back of a black woman stealing an old white ladies purse at a restaurant which broke the old lady arm. A bunch of men caught the black woman. The black woman stated, it was ok to steal the purse because the old white lady was rich as she was eating at a restaurant.
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (24) Nov 01, 2013
Since the majority of thugs and criminals vote and are Progressives, of course they support gun control. They know gun control means more defenseless victims.

A while ago I was talking to my son about gun control, and how Progressives hate old women and want them defenseless against thugs. I told him if I was a thug and an old lady came at me with a bat, I would take the bat and beat her with it. Only a gun would make an old lady equal to me..... shortly after I had that talk with my son, a news story came up about a thug breaking into a home of two old ladies, one old lady grabbed a bat which was taken from her by the thug who started beating her with it. The assault ended when the other old lady grabbed her gun and shot the thug.

Progressives, why do you love thugs and evil people so much that you want to make old ladies defenseless?
MR166
2.2 / 5 (23) Nov 01, 2013
"Progressives, why do you love thugs and evil people so much that you want to make old ladies defenseless?"

The answer is simple, the progressive aim is to make everyone so dependent on the government that there can be no real dissent. Defenseless people are easy to control and enslave. The socialist ruling class live very well while the underclass starves. Why do you think that so many Soviet billionaires appeared right after the fall of Communism? Simple, they were part of the ruling system.
rwinners
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2013
"Progressives, why do you love thugs and evil people so much that you want to make old ladies defenseless?"

The answer is simple, the progressive aim is to make everyone so dependent on the government that there can be no real dissent. Defenseless people are easy to control and enslave. The socialist ruling class live very well while the underclass starves. Why do you think that so many Soviet billionaires appeared right after the fall of Communism? Simple, they were part of the ruling system.

I reallly don't think this is a 'progressive' issue. However, if you changed 'progressive' to 'those in power', I'd tend to agree.
antialias_physorg
2.9 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2013
Yes, and? You realize the reverse is also true. That you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should refrain from doing it. I fail to see the point here, please clarify.

The point is that having the right is not a reason to excercise that right. Rygg argues that one SHOULD have a gun because the constutution grants one that right - that makes no sense.
You can own a gun legally in most any country (even Japan) but most people in most countries don't see the need to do so.
He hasn't thought the same way YOU do about YOUR life.

He lives in a country which has morals currently heavily influenced by christian values.
And if I remember correctly:
The founder of that religion was heavily against violence in any form whatsoever - even for self protection (and also absolutely opposed to him and his followers having personal property)

So yeah: When he conflates morals and property he's not thought that one through. He's acting exactly OPPOSITE his supposed morals.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (23) Nov 01, 2013
What a "progressive liberal" IS, is one who believes in government planned society. Not necessarily socialists outright, but they believe that society, the environment, and economies are amendable to government design and fixes.

The problem is, is that they will make use of legitimate scientifically based statistics (albeit usually one sided) .....to justify social engineering, and people usually fall into the trap of debate about that particular issue, rather than countering that the "social ill" or "risk" in question is an acceptable one for the greater good of preserving liberty, and avoiding unintended consequences.

Liberal progressives never analyze the failure of their own agendas. If it "sounds good" at first listen without too much thought, they go with it.

They had three years to roll out ObamaCare and they couldn't even get the web site right,... so how could the rest of it possible work?!
MR166
1.9 / 5 (20) Nov 01, 2013
"I reallly don't think this is a 'progressive' issue. However, if you changed 'progressive' to 'those in power', I'd tend to agree."

I am not excluding the Republican RHINOs from the progressive movement, AKA people in power. There are only a handful or real Republicans, true Libertarians or Tea Party Members that have any influence at all and both political parties and the progressive media does everything in their power to marginalize them. The US has never faced a threat of this magnitude before and that includes WW2 and the Cold War.

I can only hope that we are still intelligent enough, as a nation, to deserve and preserve our freedoms!
MR166
2.1 / 5 (22) Nov 01, 2013
Anti you seem to think that most of the gun violence in the US is perpetrated by white christian males, who legally own guns, committing racial crimes. Nothing could be further from the truth. That number is miniscule in comparison to the number of guns used in a true self defense situation. Also, the self defense number is miniscule when compared to the drug/gang related shootings.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (22) Nov 01, 2013
What a "progressive liberal" IS, is one who believes in government planned society. Not necessarily socialists outright, but they believe that society, the environment, and economies are amendable to government design and fixes.


Yes, they are socialists outright.
nflates morals and property

Individuals have a moral right to defend themselves. Maybe you missed the part where property includes your life.
You can own a gun legally in most any country

But the state decides if they think you NEED one. Just like the state can decide if you should keep your life.
, if you changed 'progressive' to 'those in power', I'd tend to agree.

'Progressives' have been in power in the US for over 100 years.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (22) Nov 01, 2013
"Why are the horrors of Nazism so well-known and widely condemned but not those of socialism and communism?"
"socialist and communist ideas have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history. "
"Socialists, communists and their fellow travelers, such as the Wall Street occupiers supported by our president, care about the little guy in his struggle for a fair shake! They're trying to promote social justice." Let's look at some of the history of socialism and communism.

What's not appreciated is that Nazism is a form of socialism."
"Today's leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from those of Nazi, Soviet and Maoist mass murderers. "
"One does not have to be in favor of death camps or wars of conquest to be a tyrant. The only requirement is that one has to believe in the primacy of the state over individual rights."
http://townhall.c...age/full
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (22) Nov 01, 2013
"The unspeakable horrors of Nazism didn't happen overnight. They were simply the end result of a long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for "social justice." It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans -- who would have cringed at the thought of genocide -- who created the Trojan horse for Hitler's ascendancy. Today's Americans are similarly accepting the massive consolidation of power in Washington in the name of social justice.

If you don't believe it, just ask yourself: Which way are we headed tiny steps at a time -- toward greater liberty or toward more government control over our lives?"
http://townhall.c...age/full
Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (21) Nov 01, 2013
"Progressives detested the bedrock principles of American government. They detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult. "Progressivism" was, for them, all about progressing, or moving beyond, the principles of our founders. "
http://www.glennb...3936/#II
VENDItardE
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 01, 2013
OMG....what a crock of bullshlt this article is.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (22) Nov 01, 2013
Another example of how socialism kills:
"More green energy trouble is brewing across the pond. UK families and businesses are being crushed under the weight of high energy costs due to rapidly rising gas prices. With 4.5 million British families facing "fuel poverty," thousands could die this winter.

Read more: http://dailycalle...jROLe4B9
MR166
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 01, 2013
Which article VD? The one disclosing how many were actually killed in the Communist purges or the one disclosing the hatred that the progressives have for that "Flawed Document" (per Obama) known as the US constitution. I know, the fact that rights and freedoms are granted to each person by God and not by the state is abhorrent to you.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (25) Nov 01, 2013
Which article VD? The one disclosing how many were actually killed in the Communist purges or the one disclosing the hatred that the progressives have for that "Flawed Document" (per Obama) known as the US constitution. I know, the fact that rights and freedoms are granted to each person by God and not by the state is abhorrent to you.


VENDItardE is not the anti-American commie VendicarE, but his nemesis. I'm sure he was referring to the Phys.Org published propaganda.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 01, 2013
Tribalism. Internal altruism in conjunction with animosity toward outsiders. The next tribe over is always a little less human than yours. And what is the greatest proponent of the 'us vs them' mindset? RELIGION.

Gangs are an example of tribalism. Gang members tend to be religious. They also tend to be well-armed, and live by their own rules. They will tend to prey on outsiders and rival gangs because they perceive them to be a little less worthy than they.

What is the most famous gang in history? The Israelites. Thou shalt not kill except for rival gang members; amalakites, philistines, unbelievers, apostates, those who comingle with Üntermenschen, etc. You get the picture.

MS13 are the chosen people. Ask them. The overwhelming majority of inmates are deeply religious. They didn't regard their crimes against outsiders as crimes. Stealing from other tribes is not a crime. Ask Joshua.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 01, 2013
progressives have been in power in the US for over 100 years
Yes and during that time we have become the greatest, most prosperous, and most powerful nation that ever was. Thanks for pointing that out ryggy.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Nov 01, 2013
progressives have been in power in the US for over 100 years
Yes and during that time we have become the greatest, most prosperous, and most powerful nation that ever was. Thanks for pointing that out ryggy.

Not because of socialism.
If not for the Federal Reserve and the 'progressives', would the Great Depression have occurred? Not likely.
Had the US stayed out of WWI, no thanks to the 'progressive' Wilson, would WWII have occurred?
Had the US not attacked Spain to begin its Empire, would US soldiers died in the Philippines? (But then then the Colt .45 auto may not have been needed.)
The US is great because of the principles documented in the Declaration of Independence, not because of 'progressive' violations of the US Constitution.
Let's not forget the great 'progressive' power grab that resulted from the Volstead Act.
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2013
"Is that why people from your disgusting country risk their life to come to America on a floating door?" - NumenTard

It is a pity that you are not free enough to visit Cuba. How sad for you that America wasn't able to destroy the Cuban nation.

Awwwwwww.....

In any case, It was pure comedy to see Castro empty his prisons and send the convicts to America where they belong.

Man... I love that guy.
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2013
"Maybe not, but if that "starving man" breaks into my home or otherwise threatens my life, " - NumenTard

But that wasn't what RyggTard said. He said that he had a "moral right" to protect his property.

Normal, thinking, moral people see the phrase "moral right" as corrupt since morality is orthogonal to a person's state given rights.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2013
" YOU don't think it's a moral act. I don't think it's a moral act." - MysticalTard

But RyggTard believes that murder is his "moral right".

He is sick in the head.

tadpole
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 02, 2013
So the author is anti-gun. Sounds desperate when you start calling opposing views "racist". But then again, that's what liberals do.
Timray
1 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2013
as mother always said....the animals are fed first and never equate education with intelligence... http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/10/some-very-poorly-done-research-racism-gun-ownership-and-gun-control-biased-attitudes-in-us-whites-may-influence-policy-decisions/?fb_action_ids=10151951291288514&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151951291288514%22%3A576447672402770%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151951291288514%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D
kochevnik
1 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2013
@VendicarE Normal, thinking, moral people see the phrase "moral right" as corrupt since morality is orthogonal to a person's state given rights.
The state can't give rights, but only delete them. Of course "moral right" refers to an invisible skyfairy pulling strings and involving itself in human affairs for amusement. "Human rights" is more exact. Few states recognize human rights. For example US government denies people their rights to speech and privacy, and human dignity is under attack with homo security massaging children's genitals at airports as part of a larger conditioning program. Because who pulls the state's strings? Corporate interests
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 02, 2013
"Is that why people from your disgusting country risk their life to come to America on a floating door?" - NumenTard

It is a pity that you are not free enough to visit Cuba. How sad for you that America wasn't able to destroy the Cuban nation.
...It was pure comedy to see Castro empty his prisons and send the convicts to America where they belong.


The USA uses your dirty country as a prison at will. "Convicts" in the eyes of Castro usually means political opposition and advocates for freedom, so yes the USA has gladly welcomed many Cubans, as often times those people understand the importance of freedom and liberty more so than Americans themselves who have taken it for granted because they were born into it.

And WhyTF would I ever want to visit Cuba? Most CUBANS don't even want to visit Cuba.

It seems I have guessed right that you're Cuban. You must have been to embarrassed to admit it when I asked previously. Your anti-American rants then become all the more comedic.
Humpty
1 / 5 (18) Nov 02, 2013
There are no jews in Jerusalem, only arabs.
casualjoe
1 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2013
Conservatism is a form of nationalism, which was the real evil in national socialism.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 02, 2013
How sad for you that America wasn't able to destroy the Cuban nation. - Vendicartard


It wouldn't have been an achievement of much merit,..... not like in destroying the Soviet nation.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (18) Nov 02, 2013
Conservatism is a form of nationalism, which was the real evil in national socialism.



Wrong. Every nation must support some measure of nationalism to maintain its sovereignty. It's that aspect of national socialism that advocates absolute government control as was the case with the NAZI's, .... which is fundamentally Counter to modern American Conservatism and Libertarianism. All the NAZI's did was to take the previous german socialist government to it natural conclusion, unhindered by moral consciousness.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2013
would the great depression have occurred?
Of course. The economic cycles of growth, decay, collapse, and rebirth are inevitable given the human propensity to overpopulate.

The depression followed the greatest technological expansion in history. The industrial revolution enabled pops to grow faster and live longer than ever before. The biggest collapse and the worst wars were unavoidable.

Would they have happened differently without socialism? Socialism is the natural response to your free markets. During the decline phase of a cycle capitalists begin colluding to prey upon workers and consumers. Families begin to starve. People revolt.

But the grand artifice of communism is another creature entirely. It is a martial law dictatorship hiding behind socialism. It has nothing to do with peoples rights.

Communism/fascism. Two sides/one coin. The people were divided and set against one another in very Manageable and Contructive ways. The Result? Nukes, space travel, iPads, peace.
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2013
Conservatism is a form of nationalism, which was the real evil in national socialism.



Wrong. Every nation must support some measure of nationalism to maintain its sovereignty. It's that aspect of national socialism that advocates absolute government control as was the case with the NAZI's, .... which is fundamentally Counter to modern American Conservatism and Libertarianism. All the NAZI's did was to take the previous german socialist government to it natural conclusion, unhindered by moral consciousness.
Conservatives do nothing but start more wars and keep USA in a perpetual state of emergency since WWII. How the fuck is that not "absolute government control?"

Don't start with the libertarian lie that they're against all wars. They're advocating conflict over resources, which is the root of all wars.That's why Somalia is a libertarian paradise and the world's toxic waste dumping ground
MR166
2 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2013
"Conservatives do nothing but start more wars and keep USA in a perpetual state of emergency since WWII."

Before you make statements like that you have better bone up on American History that has not been rewritten by the progressive establishment. Here is a small hint-------Lincoln was a Republican and the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s were passed by Republicans over the objections of Southern Democrats. The US entered the Korean war under a Democrat. Vietnam was started under Eisenhower with a few advisers but hugely escalated under Kennedy and Johnson. It was ended under Nixon. Yes, Bush is responsible for Afghanistan and Iraq.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 02, 2013
Oh yea, After Bush 1 defeated Iraq 1 he was spouting something about a "New World Order" !!!!
Does that sound "Progressive" to you?????????????????????
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (21) Nov 02, 2013
Yes, Bush is responsible for Afghanistan and Iraq.


But, many prominent democrats, including Clinton (Bill and Hillary), Kerry, Pelosi, Al Gore, Albright, Ted Kennedy, Graham, Rockefeller, etc, believed Saddam to have been a potential threat with WMD's.

I'd say Saddam was responsible as he failed to respect UN resolutions, and post 9/11 it was no longer possible to trust a dictator that had gassed 5,000 people to death.

I'd say also that the Taliban and Al-Quida was responsible for Afghanistan war. Not possible to do nothing in response to an concerted attack.
casualjoe
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2013

Wrong. Every nation must support some measure of nationalism to maintain its sovereignty.


Nationalism is about saying "we on our side of the fence are more important/better than those 'other' people, on the 'other' side of the imaginary fence", and then building lots of weapons until inevitable war. It feeds on fear, it feeds on paranoia from both sides of the fence, which is the most perpetually stupid relationship between racist nationalists the world over.

Why do we need to maintain that? We live in an evermore connected world now, people travel a lot more than ever and the lines are increasingly blurring when it comes to deciding whether someone is a national or not.

Embrace this unstoppable force and banish nationalism to the history books before it starts another fight.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2013
We live in an evermore connected world now, people travel a lot more than ever and the lines are increasingly blurring
-Are they?

"A day after US drone strike killed Hakimullah Mehsud, Pakistani #Taliban 'elect new chief' Khan Syed Mehsud. The Taliban have vowed to take "unprecedented" revenge for the attack."

"The Muslim Brotherhood - a master plan for establishing Caliphate and Sharia in Europe..."

-Throughout the history of our civilization, each generation has felt that it was finally rational enough, educated enough, pious enough, egalitarian enough, to finally be beyond the need to fight war. But then along came an enemy that it absolutely HAD to fight. Why is that?

There are still cultures to be destroyed in this world. Cultures which will most assuredly destroy us if we do not destroy them. Nationalism is an extension of tribalism, an innate biological urge. It is a useful Tool in Planning and Executing wars at the Proper time and in the Proper place.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2013
the lines are increasingly blurring when it comes to deciding whether someone is a national or not
It is easy to tell who is on the other side. They are the ones invading your allies, burning your embassies, blowing up your airplanes or flying them into your buildings. Pacifists want you to feel guilty for objecting to this and trying to stop it.

In russia the pacifists were inundated during the revolution, most of them shipped off to gulag. In nanking they were bayonetted and burned. In cambodia you could find mounds of them in rice paddies.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 02, 2013
Conservatism is a form of nationalism, which was the real evil in national socialism.


The real evil of any socialism is state control over property rights.

'Conservative' is a relative term and what the conservatives in the USA want to conserve is the spirit and intent of those who started the nation as documented in the Constitution.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"
Socialists of any flavor do NOT believe that humans have inherent rights from a Creator and that the state derives its power from the people. Socialists believe rights are not inherent and are granted by the state, for the benefit of the state, not the people.
The nationalism of the US conservatives is document in the Constitution, the Declaration, the Federalist Papers, .....
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2013
Why do we need to maintain that? We live in an evermore connected world now,

Do you lock the door of your house?
If not, what is your address so anyone and just hang out and crash?

A nation is borders, language and culture. And when a nation, because of its culture, is prosperous, creates wealth. and protects those within its borders, why shouldn't they protect what they have built from nations or cultures that are less prosperous because they would rather plunder the wealth of others?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 02, 2013
banish nationalism

"Iran's Revolutionary Guards committed to 'Death to America'"
http://www.ynetne...,00.html
How do you plan to banish Iran? Start here first.
casualjoe
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2013
The Taliban have vowed to take "unprecedented" revenge for the attack."


Prime example of how it is never going to end through violence, violence feeds violence until the only option is more violence.
Useless.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 02, 2013
"Left-wing activists and officials within President Barack Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), part of Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice (DOJ), attempted this week to reframe Operation Fast and Furious as a problem with America's gun laws."
http://www.breitb...-problem
This was the intent of the program from the beginning.
BHO needs ANOTHER diversion from the Fast and Furious scandal that killed a border patrol agent and dozens of Mexican citizens, IRS, Benghazi, NSA, Obamacare, .....
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (21) Nov 02, 2013
The Taliban have vowed to take "unprecedented" revenge for the attack."


Prime example of how it is never going to end through violence, violence feeds violence until the only option is more violence.
Useless.

How will submitting to Taliban tyranny, or Mao's tyranny, or HItler's tyranny or Stalin's tyranny or Pol Pot's tyranny or BHO's tyranny stop violence?
casualjoe
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2013
Lead by example, open up, understand where eachother is coming from, invest in health education and research, defense should mean defense, follow the golden rule of Confucius.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2013
The Taliban have vowed to take "unprecedented" revenge for the attack."


Prime example of how it is never going to end through violence, violence feeds violence until the only option is more violence.
Useless.

"China vows to silence Dalai Lama in Tibet"
http://www.france...ma-tibet
Tibet should submit to tyranny to prevent more violence, right joe?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2013
Lead by example, open up, understand where eachother is coming from, invest in health education and research, defense should mean defense, follow the golden rule of Confucius.

But defense may require VIOLENCE!
So joe agrees with the Reagan doctrine. Build up the largest, most power military force in the world so that no one could attack. And if they tried, they would be squashed like a bug.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2013
If your are a socialist, you believe this:
"So third graders are learning:
-it is the President's job to make everything fair
-the people must obey the commands of government officials
-the individual's wants are less important than the nation's well-being.
Read more at http://minutemenn...tUYR.99"
This is the new 3rd grade civics indoctrination.
casualjoe
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2013

-the individual's wants are less important than the nation's well-being.


Do you even know what you are? What makes you want? Or are you the mindless consumer they want you to be?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 02, 2013
"In the 1973 near-classic sci-fi film "Soylent Green," the year is 2022 and everything the left has always wished for has come to fruition. In this society, The Few control The Many, assisted suicide is all the rage, and The Many are reassured by their townhouse-living technocrat overlords that the bulldozers dispersing their free speech and the soylent green that feeds them is all… for the greater good."
"After all, in the film, the planet is overpopulated and warming -- you know, just like today! So of course a few must be sacrificed to serve the many -- and of course the only ones qualified to choose who "the losers" should be are the cold-hearted technocrats who also happen to be Obama's favorites."
http://www.breitb...liberals
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (22) Nov 02, 2013
Nationalism is about saying "we on our side of the fence are more important/better than those 'other' people, on the 'other' side of the imaginary fence", and then building lots of weapons until inevitable war.


You are very naive to suggest that borders are artificial, to the point of being intellectually irresponsible. Borders evolved for substantive and natural reasons.

Obviously it would be absurd if you thought the neighbor down the street was more important/better than your own family, such that you let him enter your home and take/use your stuff at will.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2013
What makes you want?

A desire to see that every individual has the opportunity to pursue their happiness. No one can guarantee they will be happy, but a limited govt that protects individual rights won't crush that opportunity.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2013
@ryggie a limited govt that protects individual rights won't crush that opportunity.
Unfortunately a limited government can't protect individual rights. Only a government with teeth and claws can do so
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (21) Nov 02, 2013
@ryggie a limited govt that protects individual rights won't crush that opportunity.
Unfortunately a limited government can't protect individual rights. Only a government with teeth and claws can do so

A govt that is LIMITED to ONLY protecting individuals rights can.
Govt by definition is violence and limited violence may be needed to defend individual's rights.
And don't forget, the individual has the right to defend his rights to life, liberty and property from anyone, including a tyrannical state.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (22) Nov 02, 2013
Lead by example, open up, understand where eachother is coming from, invest in health education and research, defense should mean defense, follow the golden rule of Confucius.


Of course this assumes that other countries and cultures are as rational and willing to give in, as yours. It is easy to play pie-in-the-sky theoretical fantasy, but it takes effort to consider actual reality.
casualjoe
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2013
Defense means there is no intent to attack, violence is attacking with intent.

And the borders were imagined in the mind of man at one time, even if they are real now, we can imagine them away too.

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2013
Defense means there is no intent to attack, violence is the attacking with intent

Such a defense is pretty useless if a potential attacker knows the victim won't use violence to defend himself.
If we build nuclear weapons, but we are not prepared to use them then they should not be built.
Iraq invaded Kuwait, with violence, because Saddam didn't believe anyone would use violence to drive him out.
Criminals are attracted to gun free zones as they know only they will be armed.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2013
"Iran's Revolutionary Guards committed to 'Death to America'"
This is why Iran does not fear the US. BHO has the same objective.
casualjoe
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2013
Ok ok, nationalism can stay. But know that nationalism does nothing to help one empathise with people from another country, while being 'free' to purchase fossil fuel based and chemical based products that have terrible effects on cultures in other parts of the world.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2013
nationalism does nothing to help one empathise with people from another country,

So?
Most people in the USA, even during the height of the cold war, held little animosity toward the people under the hammer and sickle of the USSR.
I met a Bataan death march survivor Ben Steele at WSMR a few weeks ago. Here is his story:
http://www.artmon.../steele/
He reported that while teaching after the war he had a Japanese student. He then realized how much hatred he had, justifiably so, toward Japan, but not toward its people, who we later found out were victims of their state as well.
People in the US, soldiers who fought and watched their friend die at the hands of Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Afghans, Iraqis, ... do understand that these people were and are victims of their regimes.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2013
"This "study" is an unbelievable fraud" - NumenTard

Of course NumenTard offers no evidence of Fraud.

I consider this "study" to be nothing more than a confirmation of a commonly accepted correlation between Racism and Conservatism and Conservatism and Gun Grubbing causing the correlation between Racism and Gun Grubbing.

kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2013
@ryggie a limited govt that protects individual rights won't crush that opportunity.
Unfortunately a limited government can't protect individual rights. Only a government with teeth and claws can do so

A govt that is LIMITED to ONLY protecting individuals rights can.
Govt by definition is violence and limited violence may be needed to defend individual's rights.
Sorry Ryggie that makes no fucking sense. You either protect Walmart workers or Walmart owners. It cannot go both ways. The minimum amount of violence would be to eliminate the latter. I don't think most people are demanding that happen. No, instead violence is inflicted upon the workers. Violence of ripping apart families, discouraging representation and education, and encouraging dependance on government welfare
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (21) Nov 02, 2013
You either protect Walmart workers or Walmart owners. It cannot go both ways.

That is the socialist perspective.
violence is inflicted upon the workers.

Not by Wal Mart.
Wal Mart provides opportunities for those who work there, negotiates aggressively with suppliers so they can sell products at a low price which benefits the customers. No violence. No one is forced to work there. No one is forced to buy their products.
If you are complaining that there are few options for workers, blame govts for regulations that kill businesses, like Obamacare.
DC demanded Wal Mart pay workers an excessive wage, so Wal Mart declined to open so no one could earn any wages from Wal Mart. DC would rather have welfare dependents than productive workers. Wal Mart shrugged as Rand described in Atlas Shrugged.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2013
You either protect Walmart workers or Walmart owners. It cannot go both ways.

That is the socialist perspective.
No, that's life. You should get one
violence is inflicted upon the workers.

Not by Wal Mart.
Wal Mart provides opportunities for those who work there, negotiates aggressively with suppliers so they can sell products at a low price which benefits the customers. No violence. No one is forced to work there. No one is forced to buy their products.
You are inferring that the workers don't need to eat or seek shelter? Exactly how much brain damage does being a rabid randite require?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2013
"What the labor Republicans share is a respect for work. "Work for able-bodied adults is not a necessary evil," Lee said, "but an essential pathway to personal happiness." A labor Republican opposes the Senate immigration bill not only because it's a bureaucratic monstrosity, but also because an influx of cheap labor would decrease low-skilled wages. A labor Republican is well disposed to cuts in the payroll tax rate, or to an expanded child tax credit, because he thinks the GOP ought to do something for married couples with children. A labor Republican is not reluctant to embrace proposals to reduce the size and power of the Wall Street banks. Nor is he reluctant to discuss the social and cultural background—disintegrating families, radical abortion laws, legitimation of drugs and pornography—to economic malaise."
http://www.weekly...679.html
koch can't defend his socialism either.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2013
workers don't need to eat or seek shelter?

What is limiting the opportunities for these workers to find better paying jobs?
One is a Regulatory State that crushes entrepreneurs, manufacturers, coal mining, oil production, ...
Another is a socialist state that forces some workers to join unions that use their dues to bribe more socialists into office.
A business like Home Depot could not be launched under the current Regulatory regime.
The socialist Regulatory state needs poorly paid workers dependent upon state's welfare so they will keep voting more socialists into office. Which is why amnesty is needed to create more dependent voters.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 02, 2013
@ joe:
"Above all else, public officials must show that they are responsible for managing the public's business and safeguarding the public trust through their actions, not simply by their words. Indeed, in the absence of personal and collective responsibility, there can be no democracy, no real freedom, and no pursuit of happiness. So whoever may "win" next Tuesday, in the spirit and deeper meaning of Dr. Frankl's vision of a "Statue of Responsibility," they must honor their responsibilities to what should be considered a noble calling by transcending self-interest and seeking common ground in the name of the public interest. Failure to do so is not and should not be an option!"
http://www.huffin...735.html
The rub here is 'public interest'. Socialists claim to know what is in the best interest of the public, whether they want it or not. Which is different than the public's interest.
Has BHO not blamed others for his failures?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2013
It never ends with violence...Violence feeds violence
Yah nice religionist sentiment. It most often ENDS when one side obliterates the other and destroys the CULTURE which causes the problem in the first place.

The French and russian revolutions destroyed monarchies. The US civil war destroyed the obsolete southern slave culture. WW2 destroyed Nazism and imperial japan.

Those cultures are dead. They needed to be killed as they would not have died by themselves. And this usually involves killing vast numbers of people who refuse to give them up and will fight to the death to preserve them.

Obsolete, virulent religionist cultures DESIGNED for reproductive aggression now threaten the species. 'Warfare of the cradle' as Teddy Roosevelt called it. Do you think family planning and Starbucks franchises will convince them to change their minds?

Children are a gift unto Allah. And they will not have their kids twerking like Miley Cyrus even if it does reduce the birthrate.
Captain Stumpy
1.4 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
VendicarE said

I would say not cravenly wanting the tools to murder your neighbours is pretty good evidence that you don't want to murder your neighbours.

Here in the socialist states we generally have no need to murder our neighbours. We don't cower in fear of our neighbours like our American Counterparts do.


V-
people like you are a wet dream for terrorists, criminals and tyrants.

i dont WANT to murder my neighbors, i NEED a firearm to protect myself. period. from idiots and criminals (no 911 where i live), from animals like bears, coyote, feral dogs, wild pig, etc. it is NOT a choice, as most of the aggressors i listed above do NOT respond to cheap talk or pleas for leniency. In fact, it actually inflames the situation.

i am NOT a tea-tard. i am NOT a democrat or republican. i am at times conservative, and at times liberal. i am TYPICAL. especially for where i live.

more to come...
Captain Stumpy
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
more...

i am also NOT a racist. i dont give two Sh*ts about race, gender, creed, social standing, sexual orientation, sock colour or anything else. as long as you dont try to impose YOUR beliefs on me, i really dont care one whit! so... calling me a RACIST because i oppose gun control, live in a southern state and dont like my gov't screwing with my constitution is pretty much proof enough to me that something in the study is hinkey... in fact, it is racist!

just because YOU believe that we shouldn't have the right or the ability to protect ourselves, does not mean that WE believe it, or should have to live by it. just because you dont mind being a target, and you are a sheep willingly led to slaughter, does not mean that we all are. Some of us actually care about family, self and others and are willing to protect them.

gun control is about CONTROL, of people, of power and of situations, not about safety, or stopping crime, or anything else you might dream up. and no gov't can protect all its citizens. it is not feasible unless you deputize every OTHER citizen and then make people walk around in pairs.
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2013
"people like you are a wet dream for terrorists, criminals and tyrants. " - StumpyTard

And yet there is no terrorism or tyranny in my country. Criminality is also reasonably low.

You see, Crime is largely a result of poverty and as socialism reduced poverty it also reduces crime.

"i dont WANT to murder my neighbors, i NEED a firearm to protect myself." - Stumpytard

You NEED a gun to protect yourself from your neighbors.

Here in the socialist states we don't cower in fear over what our neighbors do, or can do.

You see, in civil societies, there is relative trust among the community of it's citizens.

That is why America is such a failure. Americans cower in fear.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2013
"This "study" is an unbelievable fraud" - NumenTard

Of course NumenTard offers no evidence of Fraud.

I consider this "study" to be nothing more than a confirmation of a commonly accepted correlation between Racism and Conservatism and Conservatism and Gun Grubbing causing the correlation between Racism and Gun Grubbing.

Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (20) Nov 03, 2013
"This "study" is an unbelievable fraud" - NumenTard

Of course NumenTard offers no evidence of Fraud.


The notion of 'gun control laws' itself has had a long history of racist motivation, so it is not surprising that obviously political bias cranks would continue to use that propaganda tactic.

The notion of "symbolic racism" is itself defined at will by the corrupt idiots assembling the propaganda. If you disagree with Obama in the USA you're suspected of being a racist. It is slander, propaganda, and intellectual corruption at the highest order.

Here is how it works; 1) Find some common identification of those who are opposed to your agenda. 2) Find a means of demonizing them to supplant their reasoning with your own slander, so that your potential supporters receive the ad hominem slander and not the original rationale 3) Wrap a "study" around it, so that bias idiots publish it for you.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (20) Nov 03, 2013
Here in the socialist states we don't cower in fear over what our neighbors do, or can do.

[...]

That is why America is such a failure. Americans cower in fear.


Is that why no one wants to visit your smelly country , but clamour instead into the USA?
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (20) Nov 03, 2013
How is it possible to get the masses to go along with the expulsion, persecution, and eventual slaughter of Jews in 1930's Germany?

Goebbels knew; ......a slow trickle of propaganda carefully designed for maximum demonization of your victim, complete with "studies", ...."scientifically demonstrating" various defects to assemble into a caricature and spoon feed to the doltish masses.

Nevermind that the decision of performing such a study in the first place, exposes all of this, and at minimum such a bias choice renders the study prejudicial, and unscientific in the extreme.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 03, 2013
....:

Like the slow minute hand on a clock, people never notice it actually changing, .... nor their minds being conditioned by the propaganda machine.

All that matters is the rationale given directly by those who support gun ownership,.. not what their opposition would rather you to think is the rationale.

Once you understand this difference, you won't be a victim of propaganda, like the 'tard bot VendicarE, but instead will mature as an independent thinker. Impressionable young minds of mush are particularily susceptible to propaganda because its so much easier to be spoon fed than to activily feed yourself through independent and honest analysis of both orignal points of view.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2013
"Is that why no one wants to visit your smelly country , but clamour instead into the USA?" - NumenTard

Americans are visiting Cuba in record numbers despite strict travel restrictions, joining the hundreds of thousands of Cuban Americans who travel home each year, according to Cuban government figures published on Friday.

Just over 98,000 U.S. citizens visited Cuba in 2012, up from 73,500 in 2011 and twice the number compared with five years ago, according to an online report by the National Statistics Office

The numbers do not include more than 350,000 Cuban Americans estimated by travel agents and U.S. diplomats to have visited the island last year. Because Cuba considers them nationals, they are not listed in its tourism statistics.

U.S. citizens are barred from traveling to Cuba without government permission under a U.S. trade embargo imposed half a century ago that can only be lifted by Congress.

Poor NumenTard. No one is immigrating to his fantasy Republican home world..
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (21) Nov 03, 2013
i am also NOT a racist.

Capt., when 'liberals' call you racist, they are acknowledging they have no rational response.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2013
"All that matters is the rationale given directly by those who support gun ownership" - NumenTard

Meanwhile in the rest of the world, all that matters is a good life, happy, healthy children and the sustainable maintenance of a robust, clean, biosphere that makes it all possible.

That is how NumenTard and Conservatives in general differ from rational people.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2013
"when 'liberals' call you racist" - Ryggtard

then you are most probably a racist.

When Republicans call their own party racist, then you are assured that it is racist.

Colin Powell's former chief of staff: GOP is 'full of racists'

http://www.washin...racists/

ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (20) Nov 03, 2013
"Cuba will carry out free-market policies in its second largest island, as a test, in a bid to increase national food production, official media reported Wednesday."
"Thanks to the economic reforms launched in July 2008, as much as 70 percent of the country's agricultural land is operated by cooperatives and farmers who lease the land from the government." {Sounds like a feudal system.}
http://www.global...ELxAUZRw
Noumenon
2 / 5 (19) Nov 03, 2013
Americans are visiting Cuba in record numbers despite strict travel restrictions, joining the hundreds of thousands of Cuban Americans who travel home each year, according to Cuban government figures published on Friday.

Just over 98,000 U.S. citizens visited Cuba in 2012, up from 73,500 in 2011 and twice the number compared with five years ago, according to an online report by the National Statistics Office


The only American citizens visiting Cuba are extended family members of other Cubans born in the USA, who's parents and grand parents had escaped from that wretched country and now wish to visit relatves with their kids,.... and paid personnel of Guantanamo Bay detention camp, USA Naval base personnel, and the prisoners brought their by force.

Is it embarrassing having an American Navel base on your island?
PoppaJ
2.2 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
This new way to measure racism is kinda interesting. I read what symbolic racism is. Using this method anyone and everyone is a racist. That makes this study a fraud. The point of Americans having guns is to protect yourself from criminals and an opressive government. There is no justice or acceptability in me having to protect myself from a person breaking into my home with a butcher knife. Even if the person breaking in only has such a knife. I need to have the security of dealing with that criminal from a distance. Police cannot provide this service. You will be dead by the time they get there if you have the time to call them at all. There is a saying many people use. "You will have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands." I actually believe. "They will be prying your orders to collect my guns from your cold dead hands."
p.s. a guns is a gun is a gun is a gun. Attempting to outlaw an type or design is nothing more than a step to outlawing them all.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (19) Nov 03, 2013
"All that matters is the rationale given directly by those who support gun ownership" - NumenTard

Meanwhile in the rest of the world, all that matters is a good life, happy, healthy children and the sustainable maintenance of a robust, clean, biosphere that makes it all possible.

That is how NumenTard and Conservatives in general differ from rational people.


So, after suckling on the teat of the propaganda machine, you conclude that conservatives desire a poor unhappy life, unhealthy children, and a sustainable dirty biosphere? You're a poster boy for victimhood at the hands of corrupt debate.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (20) Nov 03, 2013
A good life, happy healthy offspring,....sounds like pets or kept animals in a zoo.

"Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow—and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution.

Poverty rates started to collapse towards the end of the 20th century largely because developing-country growth accelerated, from an average annual rate of 4.3% in 1960-2000 to 6% in 2000-10. "
http://www.econom...ould-aim
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (20) Nov 03, 2013
There is no justice or acceptability in me having to protect myself from a person breaking into my home with a butcher knife. Even if the person breaking in only has such a knife.


Exactly correct. You as an innocent victim are entitled to have the upper-hand against the intruder.

A 'progressive liberal' government presumes the role of decision making on your behalf, but it is not for your individual benefit, but for the benefit of idealistical collectivism. Through a disinterested, often bias, and potentially flawed homogeneous statistical analysis, they thus 'generalize' the individual, counter to his nature, because he must act egoistically as such.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (20) Nov 03, 2013
"Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."
One would think egalitarian 'liberals' would appreciate how a firearm can put a 100kg thug and a 45kg woman at the same level of defense.
But this is assumes 'liberals' are truly interested in individual equality. What 'liberals' really want is every individual to be equally subservient and defenseless to the state they control.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2013
pets or kept animals in a zoo
Yah ryggy demands the right (for others) to suffer and die as this is freedom as well. We are domesticated animals ryggy. We don't do well in the wild. We will do much better when your religions stop mass-producing us like puppy mills.

Stray cats and dogs are always a problem yes? Not enough farms for all the mousers.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 03, 2013
"The principle of the ideological struggle with communism — that the power of the state was an inherent danger from which the individual must be protected — is being lost to memory. Government is always the custodian of virtue now, holding out against the wicked, self-serving forces of profit and private interests. It is as if we have learnt nothing from the history of the 20th century about which values and beliefs actually delivered a life that was worth living — and how much vigilance is required to preserve them. "
http://www.telegr...dom.html
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 03, 2013
@Anti, why rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms, must be exercised is to continuously test the true intentions of the state.
Maybe Germans don't mind the state spying on them, and it seems many Americans don't mind either. Until, one day, they find out the state will use that to take more liberty.
This is great line from a great movie, Demolition Man:
"You see, according to *Cacteau's* plan. *I'm* the enemy. Because I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, freedom of choice. I'm the kind if guy who would sit in the greasy spoon and think "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the big rack of Barbecued spare ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I *want* high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese alright? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinatti in a non-smoking section. I wanna run around naked with green jell-o all over my body reading a Playboy magazine. "
Captain Stumpy
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 03, 2013
VendicarE-
You NEED a gun to protect yourself from your neighbors.blah bah blah Americans cower in fear


first: i dont NEED it for my NEIGHBORS, i need it for criminals and wild animals. there is more trust in my community then in yours, i guarantee it.

second: Americans dont "cower" behind anyone. i sure dont. i dont expect anyone to sweep in and "save the day" as this is unrealistic... in fact, in my area, it is not even possible. the cops dont come here. when they do have to come way out here, they travel in packs.
Captain Stumpy
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 03, 2013
VendicarE-
now... about the rest... just because you dont see it does not mean that it does not exist. i dont believe there is ANY country not affected by terrorism. i have lived in more than a few, from Europe to Asia to Africa and South America... and they ALL had it, on some level or another. Terrorism is not just radical muslims running around killing people with car-bombs. Sometimes, it is the state that is the terrorist.

if your community is so safe, i give you this challenge. put up a large sign in your yard, keep it there for at least a month- 30 days; it must say "my property is unarmed, and unlocked, and i will not resist anyone" ... then unlock all your doors and keep your valuables in the open. do this for a month then get back to me. if you dont have a crime in all that time, i will reconsider.

my house does not even have locks on the doors. does yours?

ONE mans UTOPIA is another mans HELL
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2013
"All that matters is the rationale given directly by those who support gun ownership" - NumenTard

Meanwhile in the rest of the world, all that matters is a good life, happy, healthy children and the sustainable maintenance of a robust, clean, biosphere that makes it all possible.

That is how NumenTard and Conservatives in general differ from rational people.


So, after suckling on the teat of the propaganda machine, you conclude that conservatives desire a poor unhappy life, unhealthy children, and a sustainable dirty biosphere? You're a poster boy for victimhood at the hands of corrupt debate.

Exactly, Mr. Austerity Man
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2013
especially the right to keep and bear arms, must be exercised is to continuously test the true intentions of the state.

I disagree. That is what a FREE press and an informed citizenship (along with a true choice of political parties) is for.

Maybe Germans don't mind the state spying on them

We mind. And we kick their asses when they do. There's still quite a few people who remember the Stasi. I would have hoped that other countries would have learned from that example. But I guess it looks like this is something everyone must experience for themselves to believe it.

Because I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, freedom of choice.

Exactly. Now if you think the US media (down to the history books) aren't heavily edited you're just fooling yourself. I'd advise you to travel a bit. You'll quickly find out that the things you think you know about the world don't mesh with reality.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 03, 2013
That is what a FREE press and an informed citizenship

The state co-ops the press and controls the indoctrination in state schools.

But in Germany, it is against the law to home school and free speech is heavily regulated when it comes to your history. Why are Germans afraid of national socialism, your 'N' word?
I have traveled and worked for Oerlikon Contraves and met a few Germans. I was surprised how anti-Jew they were.

US media (down to the history books) aren't heavily edited

EVERY media, not just the US.
We see this with the IPCC reports on climate.
Captain Stumpy
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
Now if you think the US media (down to the history books) aren't heavily edited you're just fooling yourself. I'd advise you to travel a bit. You'll quickly find out that the things you think you know about the world don't mesh with reality.


THIS i totally agree with... i grew up overseas during the cold war, and spent most of my life living around the world. everyone should have a similar experience as it gives perspective.

I disagree. That is what a FREE press and an informed citizenship (along with a true choice of political parties) is for.


THIS i DONT agree with. IMHO- no matter HOW free the press is, if the state does not fear the public, or consider the public a force to be reckoned with, then the state will continuously move to subdue and subjugate the public. without at least the CHOICE to stand and fight for your belief, then there is no HOPE, and little chance for change, if ANY.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
especially the right to keep and bear arms, must be exercised is to continuously test the true intentions of the state.


I disagree. That is what a FREE press and an informed citizenship (along with a true choice of political parties) is for.


It is what the Constitution IS for, to protect rights, so of course those rights should be continuously exercised and defended. The media itself is too corrupt and bias for this purpose.

The litmus test for out of control government encroachment, is not in the easy cases where everyone is likely to agree, ....but especially in those cases where some may find the free speech egregious or the gun ownership unnecessary. This is why gun rights are defended so vigorously in the USA, not necessarily because everyone wants a gun; I don't have one nor want one myself at this point.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 03, 2013
everyone should have a similar experience as it gives perspective.

A former colleague worked in Nigeria for a time and witnessed kids pulling tapeworms out of their mouths.
He thought his kids should have an opportunity to witness such conditions.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 03, 2013
.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 03, 2013
Can't have too much liberty in Cuba or the people might get ideas.

"HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuba closed dozens of home-based movie theaters on Saturday and reaffirmed its plans to end the private sale of imported goods as communist authorities pressed for "order, discipline and obedience" in the growing small business sector."
"The import ban has created a fury among entrepreneurs and the public who have tired of buying high priced and low quality clothing from state-run establishments."
http://ca.news.ya...tor.html

ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 03, 2013
" in Canada the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal has just fined a stand-up comic, Guy Earle, $15,000 for the crime of "offending" lesbians at a comedy club. They were drunk and were heckling him, and he unburdened himself of some putdowns. But they were homophobic putdowns, and so he must be punished."
"For the crime of giving offense is in the eye of the offended. A "multicultural" society needs not sensitivity training but insensitivity training — that's to say, thicker skins. The alternative is what is happening in some of the oldest free societies on earth: a state ever more comfortable in regulating the citizenry's speech, thoughts, and jokes. There's a word for that, and it isn't "diversity"."
http://www.nation...rk-steyn
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2013
Hi Noumenon. :-)
Places like Chicago and D.C. have the toughest gun laws but also the highest crime rate. This fact alone exposes the incompetence of liberal anti-gun policy. A rational person would then conclude that gun laws do not reduce such crime as they don't effect criminals at all by definition, and thus cannot protect you. The government is simply not competent to protect you. Self protection is an inalienable right, and gun ownership is a constitutional right.


You're "reaching" a bit , aren't you, mate? It could be the other way: the gun laws are tougher there BECAUSE the crime rate is higher? And those laws are undermined by other states ALLOWING such guns which then come across those precincts' borders. Yes? :-)

Other countries like Australia etc don't have that "gun ownership" fixation as "inalienable constitutional right". So your example only applies to USA, not universally. Yes? :-)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2013
Hi again, Noumenon. :-)
Here in the socialist states we generally have no need to murder our neighbours. We don't cower in fear of our neighbours like our American Counterparts do.


It is only because you are all being robbed by your government equally, and are all forced to be equally poor and pathetic. When the Nazi's came to power, the crime rate plumeted too. This is a fact.

Mate, it's getting to be a bad habit with you now, biased interpretation of observations/history.

Not every country has a 'mentality' of seeing themselves as under siege or attack at 'drop of a hat' by his countryman. Paranoia is not universal, but all GUN makers and sellers want and try to make it universal if they could.

And your exemplar Nazis BECAME THE criminal gang MONOPOLY; merely displacing, not stopping crime. Remember, they killed millions for political/religious beliefs. They stole/appropriated from millions. They ran a 'protection racket'. etc etc. Get real, mate! :-)
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
but all GUN makers and sellers want and try to make it universal if they could.

I don't think so.
Australia etc don't have that "gun ownership" fixation as "inalienable constitutional right".


American colonists rebelled, fought and beat Great Britain earning the right to decide for themselves how to govern themselves.
Australia was a penal colony and only recently were granted complete independence by GB.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2013
Had the people of France and Germany had the will and the firepower, maybe they could have thwarted the rise of Napoleon and Hitler, or made it more difficult. Ultimately that is the real value of an armed citizenry. Tin pot tyrants and their fellow travelers have to weigh the risk of being killed during their attempt to seize power.


It was the hesitation born of not wanting to become the monster themselves that stayed their hand long enough for THE monster to attain power. That and despair of poor masses suffering the burden from WWI defeat/reparations. So it wasn't a question of not having arms, but a question of:

- reasonable opponents not wanting to resort to violence, and trusting to the political system (then perverted by the Nazis and supporters of money and prestige); and of

- poor/desperate masses being ripe for religious/class/nationalist hatred propaganda while kept in the dark of the real events/reasons (murder, pillage and power-madness etc).

Get real.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
If the American colonies had not rebelled, would Great Britain have needed to colonize Australia?
Since Australia was colonized, partly in response to successful US rebellion, I suspect the GB govt was going to treat this colony a bit differently lest they face another humiliating defeat.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
not wanting to become the monster themselves

Why would they fear using force to liberate themselves?
Socialism exploits two faults in many humans, both are related to responsibility.
Some don't want to be responsible and are willing to submit to the will of others and let them be responsible, even if they are not responsible, like BHO.
The other group may be like those 'not wanting to be monsters themselves' but are more than willing to allow tyrants to do their dirty work for them so they don't have to be responsible, but still get what they want.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2013
Hi Modern Mystic. :-)
He's a human being.
hmmm. Your reply to VendicarE brings up an interesting series of questions:

- Is a corporation predicated on commercialism and profit motive embodying what it means to be a "human being"?

- Is a corporation executive predicated on making profit from making/selling guns acting/thinking as a "human being"?

- Is any shill posting here with the motive of propaganda against gun control laws motivated by his "humanity" or the profit motive?

I leave it to each "human being" posting here to ponder those questions raised by that extremely interesting answer of yours, modernmystic. Thanks for it. :-)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2013
Don't think so
You don't think so? An opinion only. The same NRA and shills for the US/other gun makers/sellers are busy in Australia trying to spread hatred and fear and paranoia from the NRA/corporate propaganda 'playbook'. Your opinion is trumped by direct observation to the contrary in reality here 'on the ground'.
American colonists rebelled, fought and beat Great Britain earning the right to decide for themselves how to govern themselves. Australia was a penal colony and only recently were granted complete independence by GB.
What has that to do with internal matters AS 'one country', citizen-to-citizen/society relationships? No 'armed citizens' NOW will stop another nation from invading/conquering on the grand scale. Only a permanent, organized, well-equipped (long reach/heavy weaponry etc) STANDING NATIONAL MILITARY capacity has any hope. The armed citizenry' would be picked off/mopped up from long range in no time. Even French army/defenses didn't last long.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2013
If the American colonies had not rebelled, would Great Britain have needed to colonize Australia?
Since Australia was colonized, partly in response to successful US rebellion, I suspect the GB govt was going to treat this colony a bit differently lest they face another humiliating defeat.

At the time British were in competition with the Napoleonic French exploration/mapping of Terra Australis coast etc. The fate of US colony had no part to play. The British and French were in a long war already, and competing long before the US colony's fate was being settled by war (history/documents reveal that war was preventable but communication delays let matters go beyond retrieval before compromise could be implemented). Read up the full history, especially relating to the last-minute offers/communications etc that did not reach in time.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
You don't think so? An opinion only.

So? That's all you provided, opinion.
The armed citizenry' would be picked off/mopped up from long range in no time.

The French underground, among many others, gave the NAZIs quite a hard time.
It seems John Marsden doesn't agree that an armed citizenry couldn't fight back.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2013
Why would they fear using force to liberate themselves?
Not 'fear'. They were in a democracy at the time. They trusted it would work. Too late. The Nazi propaganda and brownshirts etc quickly made 'democracy' null and void because those honorable men in charge of the military did not see the monster in time, and trusted in political process to the end (wanting to avoid the bloodshed which they still remembered from the earlier external/internal violence/conflicts which wasted life and treasure but solved nothing (as WWI especially proved after The Kaiser was defeated).

They just didn't have the stomach to add to the violence, and trusted their political democracy until it was stolen from the people by murder, propaganda and extortion. They acted too late to save their democracy, simply because they did not want to be the monster.

Similar to why Chamberlain tried to 'placate' Hitler/Nazis, believing Hitler would keep their word. Britain didn't want to be the monster then either.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
"NSW police commissioner Andrew Scipione explained: "There is no single source of gun violence... guns have fallen into the hands of organized crime, outlaw motorcycle gangs, mid-level crime groups and petty thieves and the lines are often blurred.""
http://www.breitb...-Control
The excuse cities like Chicago and DC give about high gun crime rates is it is so easy to get firearms across the border.
Australia is a island continent with strict gun laws and still can't control criminal use of firearms.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 03, 2013
So? That's all you provided, opinion.
Seems you missed this in support of my statement:
The same NRA and shills for the US/other gun makers/sellers are busy in Australia trying to spread hatred and fear and paranoia from the NRA/corporate propaganda 'playbook'. Your opinion is trumped by direct observation to the contrary in reality here 'on the ground'.
Observed fact, not just my 'opinion'. Yes?
The French underground, among many others, gave the NAZIs quite a hard time.
Seems your reading/knowledge of modern history is not up to scratch for purposes of your opinions on its real contents/events. If it wasn't for the British Special Operations Executive supplying intelligence, manpower and special arms and 'communications/escape/rescue' means etc, there WAS no effective 'French Resistance' capability to speak of at all. Only nuisance value without considerable EXTERNAL assist. It would have led nowhere without EXTERNAL plan for ALLIED INVASION to LIBERATE France. :-)
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
They trusted it would work.

Hitler was quite popular. His party, the NSDAP won 18% of the vote in 1930 and 37% in 1932.
http://www.spiege...634.html
"But even the slick and sophisticated techniques behind the creation of the Führer Myth would have been ineffective, had not fertile terrain been prepared long before Hitler became Reich Chancellor. Expectations of national salvation were by 1933 widespread, not just among Nazi supporters, and had already become vested in the person of Hitler. By the time that he took power, over 13 million voters had at least partially swallowed the Führer cult,"
"In the early years of the Third Reich, most people sensed that after the dismal years of hopelessness there was new direction, energy, and dynamism. There was a widespread feeling that finally a government was doing something to get Germany back on her feet."
http://www.spiege...over-the
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 03, 2013
"NSW police commissioner Andrew Scipione explained: "There is no single source of gun violence... guns have fallen into the hands of organized crime, outlaw motorcycle gangs, mid-level crime groups and petty thieves and the lines are often blurred.""
http://www.breitb...-Control
The excuse cities like Chicago and DC give about high gun crime rates is it is so easy to get firearms across the border.
Australia is a island continent with strict gun laws and still can't control criminal use of firearms.


The guns are smuggled into Australia. That is what happens. That is the point.
The more guns, the more gun-related incidents have arisen.
Making more and more powerful/automatic guns 'legally available' would only exacerbate the problem.
The reasonable course is minimization, education/culture; exposing the NRA/corporate shill/propaganda purveying fear, hatred and paranoia.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
Observed fact, not just my 'opinion'. Yes?

No. Still, just your opinion.
They trusted it would work.

"At the grass roots, the growth of the Führer cult meant that Hitler could detach himself from policy areas which were unpopular and exploit immense reserves of personal support practically at will." {Sounds WAAY too familiear}
http://www.spiege...9-4.html
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 03, 2013
Hitler was quite popular. His party, the NSDAP won 18% of the vote in 1930 and 37% in 1932.
http://www.spiege...634.html
"But even the slick and sophisticated techniques behind the creation of the Führer Myth would have been ineffective, had not fertile terrain been prepared long before Hitler became Reich Chancellor. Expectations of national salvation were by 1933 widespread, not just among Nazi supporters, and had already become vested in the person of Hitler. By the time that he took power, over 13 million voters had at least partially swallowed the Führer cult,"
"In the early years of the Third Reich, most people sensed that after the dismal years of hopelessness there was new direction, energy, and dynamism. There was a widespread feeling that finally a government was doing something to get Germany back on her feet."

Didn't I just point out that? The WWI consequences, despair and propaganda and willingness to trust to the political (even if Furher cult involved)? Thanks. :)
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
The guns are smuggled into Australia.

So now it's the fault of the world?
The world must ban firearms to keep guns from criminals in Australia?
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns is quite true.
Since firearms bans don't stop criminals and only keep the non-criminals defenseless, the real objective of such bans is not public safety but public control. Even in benevolent Australia.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2013
No. Still, just your opinion.
So local observations of the NRA/corporate involvement in Australia propaganda activities etc is irrelevant to you? Ok. Have it your way, mate.
"At the grass roots, the growth of the F�Ľhrer cult meant that Hitler could detach himself from policy areas which were unpopular and exploit immense reserves of personal support practically at will." {Sounds WAAY too familiear}
Yes, I again just got through describing both method and the motives for exactly all that. How many times do you wish to just repeat/confirm what I have been pointing out to you? :-)
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
Only nuisance value without considerable EXTERNAL assist.
But they were still WILLING to fight back, like so many resistance groups in history.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
So local observations of the NRA/corporate involvement in Australia propaganda activities etc is irrelevant to you?


Free speech is not allowed in Australia?
Your observations of the impact of NRA activities is still our opinion.
And it is not irrelevant. Why shouldn't Australian citizens have the right to defend themselves?
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 03, 2013
So now it's the fault of the world?
The world must ban firearms to keep guns from criminals in Australia?
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns is quite true.
Since firearms bans don't stop criminals and only keep the non-criminals defenseless, the real objective of such bans is not public safety but public control. Even in benevolent Australia.
How 'glib' of you to trivialize it. Are you genuine, or just argumentative/shill for rationalizing away realities?

Can't you see the point being made? It doesn't matter who or how it happens, the point is it does happen that guns cross borders/precincts. Hence your and others' facile connection of stricter laws with higher crime is BOGUS. Especially when it could be the other way round, like I said, that tougher laws are BECAUSE of more guns WHICH may come across from ANYWHERE that guns are legally PROLIFERATED because of fear, paranoia and hatreds engendered by NRA/Corporate propaganda/influence. Get genuine, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 03, 2013
Sorry, ryggesogn2, but it seems your rationalizations and excuses make you blind to the real tragedy of the problem and its profit-motive 'players' propagating such rationalizations as you have been trying out on us. We are not ignorant or dumb like those poor unfortunates kept in the dark and fed bullshite propaganda so that some power/profit motivated corporations, NRA/individual shills and assorted crazies driven to fear, hatred and paranoia by those same "free speechers" perverting the meaning of that term for their own dangerous and tragic power/profit/political intents. Good bye, mate. I haven't any more time to spend on such. Good luck in being a "human being". :-)
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 04, 2013
the point is it does happen that guns cross borders/precincts.

Yep.
tougher laws are BECAUSE of more guns


But NOT for public safety but for public control.
Australians don't mind being sheep, I guess.
casualjoe
3 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2013
australians don't mind being sheep, I guess.


did you invent the gun? did you contribute to the technology in any way? oh, your too drunk on power to remember like all the other sheep sorry for asking.
AkiBola
1 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2013
Where "After accounting for numerous other factors ..." is the mechanism used to achieve the desired study outcome: white racists are afraid of the black man. So sad this bogus "study" had to be published.
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2013
"first: i dont NEED it for my NEIGHBORS, i need it for criminals and wild animals." - StumpyTard

America must be overrun by criminals and wild animals.

Never have I NEEDED to murder a criminal or a wild animal. In fact, I welcome Wild animals to my property.

Why do you think that America is overrun by Criminals? You have 3 million of them in your GULAG system already.

How man more Americans do you feel need to be imprisoned or murdered to keep you safe?

VendicarE
2.2 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2013
"Cuba closed dozens of home-based movie theaters on Saturday and reaffirmed its plans to end the private sale of imported goods as communist authorities pressed for "order, discipline and obedience" - RyggTard

Meanwhile in Neo-Nazi America...

At least 54 abortion providers across 27 states have shut down or ended their abortion services in the past three years, and several more clinics are only still open because judges have temporarily blocked legislation that would make it difficult for them to continue to operate.

More than 50 abortion clinics across the country have closed or stopped offering the procedure since a heavy wave of Republican legislative attacks on providers began in 2010

http://www.huffin...529.html
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2013
"All that matters is the rationale given directly by those who support gun ownership" - NumenTard

Meanwhile in the rest of the world, all that matters is a good life, happy, healthy children and the sustainable maintenance of a robust, clean, biosphere that makes it all possible.

That is how NumenTard and Conservatives in general differ from rational people.

VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2013
"This "study" is an unbelievable fraud" - NumenTard

Of course NumenTard offers no evidence of Fraud.

I consider this "study" to be nothing more than a confirmation of a commonly accepted correlation between Racism and Conservatism and Conservatism and Gun Grubbing causing the correlation between Racism and Gun Grubbing.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (13) Nov 04, 2013
The point is that having the right is not a reason to excercise that right. Rygg argues that one SHOULD have a gun because the constutution grants one that right - that makes no sense.


It makes no sense to you. Beyond that I don't know what you're saying. It is a different value set than yours. Why is this an issue for you?

You can own a gun legally in most any country (even Japan) but most people in most countries don't see the need to do so.


Yes, cultures around the world do things differently...so what?

He lives in a country which has morals currently heavily influenced by christian values.


Yours was too at one point and still is to some degree...what's your point? People are individuals, they are not their culture.

So yeah: When he conflates morals and property he's not thought that one through.


Again that's just your opinion, and your reasoning is extremely thin to say the least. AFAICS is a litany of non-sequitirs and subjectivity.
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 04, 2013
VendicarE
America must be overrun blah blah blah to keep you safe?


There are still wild places in america. Where i am, there are MANY wild animals that you cannot reason with. Bears and Mountain Lions dont give a Sh*t about your politics. you dont have Bears kicking down your door for easy food.
as for criminals. criminals are opportunistic. if they see someone in a remote location that the cops do not go to, they think they can get away with something... being armed insures that i can safely protect my life, and the lives of my family and grandchildren. There is no NEED to kill, only a CHOICE that i CAN PROTECT MY FAMILY. just because i have a firearm does not mean i have to KILL. i have used it before without firing a shot.

the 2nd amendment is not about killing everyone, it is about having the CHOICE to DEFEND YOURSELF. just because you are weak and you dont mind letting others destroy all that you love doesn't mean that i am the same way.
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 04, 2013
VendicarE

i see that you are not taking my challenge? perhaps you are afraid? you are the real coward. you would force others to live as you do, regardless of their circumstances, in the belief that your way of life is better than, or superior to, anyone else's. What makes you think it is so? because YOU personally think you are safe? in america, circa 1776 we had similar circumstances... being governed by people who were unaware of reality. we kicked them out.

perhaps your "utopia" is not as safe as you would have others believe. if you want to convince me that your was is better than mine, either you must come live in MY area or you must PROVE to me that it is better by meeting my challenge. but you will not, because it will invite folly into your world, and you would be a victim of crime. i REFUSE to be a victim. THAT is why i support owning firearms.

I don't even close MY back door...
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 04, 2013
VendicarE

CHOICE is what the Constitution is all about... CHOICE. the CHOICE to live life YOUR OWN WAY without people forcing you to believe their way... the choice to LIVE.

you wish to take away that CHOICE because YOU DONT have a choice. you believe your way is better than our way. your way may work where you live because your people are subdued by your gov't. this is a cultural difference between us, you actually CANNOT understand how i live. i can understand that because i have lived around the world and seen how others lived.

your issue is that you ASSUME that there is no crime where you live. you are WRONG. you just dont SEE it. if there were NO CRIME, you would not have police officers. period. but you do... why does your country have a military? or police? if your country is so idyllic? because there are outliers... there are people who DONT obey the law and wish to take what others have. this is common in ALL cultures. i have the CHOICE of an EFFECTIVE defense. you don't.
casualjoe
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2013
I've no doubt you'll always be granted a licence and you won't be affected, you can own guns in the UK too with a licence so don't think people wanna take your guns away. It just makes sense to treat weapons responsibly and carry out periodical license renewals, to provide good data for people to try and stop the flow of illegal weapons and reduce crime.
Gun crime in the UK is negligible and I assure you that's something worth striving for.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 04, 2013
RealityCheck said: the point is it does happen that guns cross borders/precincts.

ryggesogn2 replied: Yep.
RealityCheck said: tougher laws are BECAUSE of more guns


ryggesogn2 replied: But NOT for public safety but for public control.
Australians don't mind being sheep, I guess.


What was that you were saying about 'opinions' then, mate? :-)

In my case I have local news to back me up with observations on the ground; whereas you just made a completely subjective assessment as to the reason for for the tougher laws.

Look to your motives, both personal and political and mercenary, mate! Good luck with that introspection, ryggesogn2, if ever you attempt it. :-)
freethinking
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 04, 2013
Why do Progressives hate old ladies? Why do Progressives want to protect thugs?
I told my son a week before this story came about that if I wanted to harm an old lady, and she was armed with a baseball bat or a knife, I would take the knife or bat and use it against her. The only thing that would scare me in an old ladies hand would be a gun...... week later this story: http://www.thebla...oves-it/

We both laughed..... and I ask again, why do progressives protect thugs and hate old ladies?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (15) Nov 04, 2013
Hi Captn Stumpy. :-) There is NO intention of making it 'criminal', or to remove guns from, those with legitimate (like yours) reasons/needs. But to identify/implement a RANGE of reasonable measures to minimize UNNECESSARY proliferation of UNNECESSARILY dangerous guns. Question your comments raise in my mind:
- Do you live in a place populated by reasonable folk, or in a jungle where 'dog eats dog'?
- Who/How many need automatic/assault weapons in town with police force?
- If certain laws didn't 'criminalize' (rather than 'medicalize/educalize/culturalize/minimalize strategies) drug addiction etc, would there be all those 'criminals' threatening you and clogging up your prison/justice system and wasting anti-terrorism/criminal resources etc?
- Are economic/political policies predicated on 'dog eat dog' "values" (depend on 'tips' for anywhere decent survival income; degrade people, criminalizing their medical, mental, poverty etc problems) better than giving dignity/fair wages etc? :-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2013
Who/How many need automatic/assault weapons in town with police force?
We've seen law and order break down a number of times during natural disasters, riots, blackouts, terrorist attack, etc. We can expect situations such as this to increase.

The only weapon appropriate against a gang of looters or carloads of gang bangers or a pack of wild dogs, is an autoload long gun of intermediate caliber or above with replaceable hi-cap mags; ie an assault rifle. Something that can hit multiple targets quickly from a safe distance and shoot through car doors.
But to identify/implement a RANGE of reasonable measures to minimize UNNECESSARY proliferation of UNNECESSARILY dangerous guns
We already restrict full-auto, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, grenades, RPGs, etc. Which means the only people who have them are the cartels.

Your concerns have already been addressed. And so have ours.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2013
"This "study" is an unbelievable fraud" - NumenTard

Of course NumenTard offers no evidence of Fraud.

I consider this "study" to be nothing more than a confirmation of a commonly accepted correlation between Racism and Conservatism and Conservatism and Gun Grubbing causing the correlation between Racism and Gun Grubbing.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (14) Nov 05, 2013
Hi TheGhostofOtto1923. Thanks for your genuine & polite response. :-)
Your concerns have already been addressed. And so have ours.
I'm not so sanguine as you are about that, mate. For instance, your 'take' on natural disasters etc would have every household hold rapid-load and high lethality/range weapons? Scary! Must be pretty terrible society that creates such fear/likely of gangs, terrorists and assorted crazies roaming the streets waiting for the lights to go out etc. Does it reflect the policies I mentioned? Where society/economics is currently predicated on 'dog eat dog' mentality at its roots? Might decent support mechanisms fostering dignity and social cohesion (ie, living wage; medical/poverty safety net with dignity; decriminalizing/addressing properly social issues like addiction, mental illness; not demonizing/discriminating as a political/racial ploy; go for highest common denominator instead of the lowest etc) help make your society less scary? Cheers! :-)
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2013
RealityCheck
Hmmm... let me start by answering questions and asking as well. When you say "police force", you mean multiple members of law enforcement, correct? In the nearest town to me, there is only three police officers. There has been no real need for more, unless they have to come out where i live, as the area is very wild still.
the issue is complicated, and you have valid points, however, we are constitutionally guaranteed to be allowed to own firearms. Now, YOU make a designation between them and say, why do you need (insert weapon here)? that is NOT the issue... the issue of gun control is CONTROL.

now...about owning weapons. Gun control advocates want regulations, and all this other crap... we already have regulations and all that other crap! As Otto said, we cannot own just anything. Again, we come back to CONTROL. a criminal, by definition, does not obey the law, so passing laws only affects law abiding citizens.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2013
RealityCheck
identify/implement a RANGE of reasonable measures to minimize UNNECESSARY proliferation of UNNECESSARILY dangerous guns


a gun is an inanimate object. it is a TOOL. you cannot assign morality to tools, only to actions. and actions come from humans. period. i am more dangerous with a knife than you are with a gun. But i have also used a gun without discharging it. does that make it a dangerous weapon? no, it makes ME one, but not the tool. There is a meme: If guns kill people, then spoons make people fat, cars make people drive drunk... etc... you get the point. this is actually absolutely TRUE. it is not the tool, it is the user. What the issue SHOULD be is how to correct the violence problem, NOT how to control guns. Controlling guns only creates more victims, as they are no longer able to defend themselves with the same tools that the criminals WILL use. Passing gun control laws does not affect violence, it only affects the ability to defend yourself.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2013
RealityCheck
- Who/How many need automatic/assault weapons in town with police force?


depends on where you live. in my woods, they can mean the difference between life and death.

If certain laws didn't 'criminalize' ... clogging up your prison/justice system and wasting anti-terrorism/criminal resources etc?


probably not.

- Are economic/political policies ...better than giving dignity/fair wages etc?


Laws and economic / political policies should have SOME basis on/in reality. Gun Control is NOT reality based. it is based upon the OPINIONS of wealthy, well protected urbanites who whish to dictate to others how to live. rich people with armed security guards and their own private police force in gated communities do NOT know or understand the violence that can be found in the inner city, or in the wild woods.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2013
RealityCheck
- Do you live in a place populated by reasonable folk, or in a jungle where 'dog eats dog'?


i thought it was obvious. i have 4 neighbors, good people. no one closer than 2 miles. Where i live is mostly wild. the transient population is either hunters or poachers. Mostly poachers. Poachers are criminals. they are NOT reasonable. they are known to use VIOLENCE whenever it suits them. i also see a LOT of wild animals: from Bear and Mountain Lion, to skunk and feral pets. It is dog-eat-dog here MOST of the time. Animals dont understand reason or logic, and most poachers and criminals i have dealt here with are no better. they all only understand the ability and willingness to commit violence in defense, nothing else.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2013
RealityCheck
about your reply to Otto... i dont know how he feels, but i would like to weigh in on it. our society does not CREATE the fear, it only recognizes the possibility of such things happening in reality, as we HAVE SEEN and noted that such things have ALREADY happened! in New Orleans, cops and military kicked down doors and (essentially) stole law abiding citizens weapons, leaving them defenseless against looters and criminals. REALITY.

reality is that criminals are out there. reality is that some people are opportunistic and will become criminals if the situations present themselves and they feel the risk is worth it. changing the cultural/political values only applies to those willing to listen and change. Criminals, do NOT obey laws, and operate OUTSIDE cultural values, it BECOMES their culture. THIS is REALITY. what you suggest will only work if forced upon everyone in some genetic/mechanical means. is it moral to force your viewpoint on someone who does not want it?
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2013
RealityCheck

continued from last post... and should you decide that it is in the best interest to breed out aggression or violence, or to add mechanical adaptations that will not allow people to become criminal... who, then, takes charge and then dictates to the masses what reality should be? who then takes the reigns and leads? who determines the parameters of what SHOULD be? who makes the decisions of what will be allowed? Musllims? Christians? Athiest? the Rich? the politically powerful? are you willing to lose your loved ones because they are no onger relevant to society, or because it is the whim of the ruling elite?

who is to say any ONE way is the RIGHT way. situations differ. there are a dozen answers to every question... there is never any RIGHT answer. Life is not the same as the SAT's. Gun Control is about control. it will NOT have ANY effect on criminals
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2013
How stupid are Conservative Gun Grubbers?

This stupid....

An apparent hunt for Bigfoot in the woods of Oklahoma went wrong after a man reportedly heard a "barking noise," turned around and shot his friend in the back, police say.

One of the men told authorities they were hunting for the mythical beast in the woods of Rogers County Saturday night.

---

Captian Stumpy needs a gun to protect himself against wild animals like Bigfoot.

And to murder his neighbours of course...

Ahahahahahhahahaha.... Morons.....

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 05, 2013
I've no doubt you'll always be granted a licence and you won't be affected, you can own guns in the UK too with a licence


Prove it.
Where is the data?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 05, 2013
"While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. "
http://www.thecom...uns_back
A 'ban' means NOT allowed.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2013
VendicarE
Captian Stumpy needs a gun to protect himself against wild animals like Bigfoot.
And to murder his neighbours of course...


absolutely fascinating. in his/her failure to logically dispute and the sure knowledge that his/her argument is total malarkey, VendicarE has taken instead to calling names and vilification.

by all means, V, show us how intelligent you are. so far, you are doing poorly. i have been called MUCH worse, and that person actually had the courage to stand and call me names to my face, unlike you! so... by all means, get creative! i look forward to seeing what you have! this should be fun!

P.S. I don't believe in bigfoot...
casualjoe
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2013

Prove it.
Where is the data?


http://en.wikiped..._Kingdom ..you would have found this if you briefly read the comments on your own link.
Some of my friends have guns too, they're visited by an inspector once a year for a check up, hardly a big deal is it? I've been told it works that way in new zealand too.

VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2013
Republican Racism goes back to the origin of the party, with George Washington's slave ownership and his rape of child slave Sally Hemings.

Sad that few Americans know that George Washington was a slave owner and pedophile.

http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0

freethinking
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 05, 2013
VD you lie just like Obama, often, blatantly and viciously,
Obama lying about lying: http://dailycalle...romises/
How about Obama lying about Benghazi:http://www.washin...log.html
How many people actually believe Obama did not know about Fast and Furious, the DOJ going after reporters who didn't toe the Democrats lines, or the IRS going after and hindering Conservative groups, or how HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicited donations from companies HHS might regulate, or how the Obama administration funded and promoted its poster boy for green energy despite warning signs the company was headed for bankruptcy, ? Oh yea he doesn't lie, He is just the worst informed President -EVER-
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2013
"VD you lie just like Obama" - FreeTard

It is historical fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. In fact he was one of the largest slave owners in Washington.

And it is also common knowledge, confirmed by genetic testing that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings when she was a child.

In 1787, Sally Hemings, at the age of 14,[2] accompanied Jefferson's youngest daughter Mary (Polly) to London and then to Paris, where the widowed Jefferson was serving as the United States Ambassador to France. Hemings spent two years there. Hemings and Jefferson are believed to have begun a sexual relationship either in France or soon after their return to Monticello. Hemings had six children of record born into slavery; four survived to adulthood and were noted for their resemblance to Jefferson.[3] Sally Hemings remained a domestic servant in Jefferson's house until his death.

http://en.wikiped..._Hemings
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 06, 2013
Some of my friends have guns too,

Don't knop much about 'guns' do you joe?
"Can I own a handgun?
Handguns are banned in England. This applies to any firearm with an overall length of less than 30 cm. However muzzle-loading handguns are per"
http://content.me...singfaqs
freethinking
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 06, 2013
Historians have written for years about the treatment of some of the slaves at Monticello for years. And also there are many contradictions - at least on the surface - between the opinion that Jefferson conveyed in his writings against slavery, and the fact that his home was indeed an estate who's operation was dependent on the backs of many slave laborers. But no one, can truly know what Jefferson's personal thoughts and feelings were with regards to anything - let alone the issue of slavery. All one can do is take the man's writings - his own words - and try to glean some sort of insight into what he likely believed and thought about a given subject. Taken in that context, I believe it's historically accurate to say that Jefferson fought against slavery his entire life. From the original draft of the declaration of independence to his support of the elimination of slavery in the Western Territories.
freethinking
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 06, 2013
As a slave owner, a stance such as this would have done him no good. Yet this was his stance.

As far as his ownership of slaves goes, it's important to keep in context the time in which he lived. There were legal restrictions on the freeing of slaves, and Jefferson also struggled to manage very large debts. One did not simply free slaves at that time by walking up to them and telling them they are free to go. There was a financial burden to be had, both in the release of a slave, as well as the labor loss that would be incurred on these types of plantations - let alone a plantation that carried an enormous amount of debt. Yet regardless of what Jefferson did, or did not do regarding the operation of Monticello, it's important to keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson never once defended the institution of slavery. Not once. Unlike many in the Democratic party.

Progressives lie with half truths, distortions, and outright lies. Then like Obama lie about lying.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2013
As a slave owner, a stance such as this would have done him no good. Yet this was his stance.

Then like Obama lie about lying.
Those days, landed gentry were the ones in control, there was little difference between them in reality, except the political road they followed to gain power/wealth. They all abused people, rights and laws to their own advantage, and neither 'side' in politics really objected to that FOR THEMSELVES.

They ALL sexually abused their 'chosen' slave(s). They ALL accumulated wealth/power any way they could. Anyone who still believes different is only making sophist rationalizations from their own 'political' agenda, and not from the reality on the ground at the time.

They were ALL 'at it'. No Internet then to expose them for what they were.

Oh, and Obama (like all Presidents) is Officer in Chief, trying to mitigate whatever politically-damaging events occurred that may compromise Security. That's their JOB, to NOT divulge too much! Sheesh! :-)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2013
Guys/Gals!

Why keep engaging in TRIVIAL "shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic" tit-for-tat semantics/pedantry, when we should all be discussing the overall reasonable measures necessary raking into account various local/special situations exceptions as and where they are required?

Guys, stop this political/egotistical bickering over 'local variables' and concentrate on the bigger picture of the crisis which UNNECESSARY PROLIFERATION of ANY kind of weapons (be they nukes, chemical, biological OR guns) is NOT in the best interests of ANYONE except those selling/trafficking in same (and of course, the propagandists who purvey/instill fear and paranoia in UNREASONING and gullible/manipulable types who are easily swayed by it. The NRA/Corporates are also doing that in Oz, Britain etc. Get real.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 06, 2013
Handguns are banned in England. This applies to any firearm with an overall length of less than 30 cm. However muzzle-loading handguns are per"

From your prior link:http://www.thecom...uns_back

"...Daily Telegraph.......online poll......the poll continues......80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents.....want to see the handgun ban repealed."
So a NEWSPAPER whose MERCENARY interest is more eyeballs/circulation/advertising revenue, gets responses from an ANONYMOUS 'public'(probably mostly shills paid 'per response' by the NRA/Corporate propaganda machine), purports to "conduct" a "poll" in which "800" (ahem) "people" out of a "thousand" (ahem) "people" support repealing gun control law? And you try to make out that farcical mercenary exercise in propaganda (most probably thought up/sponsored and funded by NRA/Corporate Propaganda Machine) is supposed to carry any weight at all in reality?

Puh-leese! Pull the other one, it has bells on! :-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2013
Thanks for your genuine & polite response
Uh bite me?
every household hold rapid-load and high lethality/range weapons?
No, it would have every household which wants to have such protection. Which is how it is at the moment in most states.
we should all be discussing the overall reasonable measures necessary
No, every time something happens you want to enact still more restrictive 'reasonable measures' with no effect.

The last 2 incidents happened in CA and NJ, 2 states with the most restrictive laws in the country. We already have all the reasonable measures we need. While these events seem to be increasing their frequency per capita is actually decreasing. Our population is growing.

Another old lie in a new 'study':

"About 500 American children and teenagers die in hospitals every year after sustaining gunshot wounds — a rate that climbed by nearly 60 percent in a decade"

-These 'children' are mostly gang bangers.with illegal guns. Target gangs, not guns.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2013
Hi Capt Stumpy. :-)

No problem, mate. Like I said, wherever the local/individual situation warrants it, special exceptions should apply.

It is the unnecessary proliferation which raises the probability to open-ended levels when the 'saturation point' is reached and everyone resorts to 'solving' every problem by shooting first and asking questions and alternatives later. That is the inevitable historical record of what happens when fear, hatred, guns and stupidity/mercenary motives make everything a dog-eat-dog' and 'quickest draw' type society.

That's what Wild West days were like before Law and Order came to town, and every argument didn't have to end up in the OK CORRAL gunfights anymore, because society then moved to a Civilization and Law way of making the community safer and less fearful/violent. Education and cultural non-violence spread through community saves more people than ever 'guns' do!

Anyhow, Mate, I understand 'where you're coming from'. I see your points. Cheers!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2013
It is the unnecessary proliferation which raises the probability to open-ended levels when the 'saturation point' is reached and everyone resorts to 'solving' every problem by shooting first and asking questions and alternatives later
You gunphobes love ad infinitums dont you? Guns are readily available in the US. You do understand this dont you? Anyone who wants one can get one. This includes teenage gangsters. Any laws you wish to pass will NEVER affect THEIR ability to get a gun.

In Britain, gun bans have created a market for fully-automatic weapons.

"ASIAN gangs armed with shotguns and automatic weapons have emerged as the new threat to Greater Manchester's war on guns."

-Millions of AKMs are sitting in third world warehouses waiting for markets in the US to open up.
mercenary motives... quickest draw... shooting first and asking questions... Wild West days... OK CORRAL... NRA/Corporate Propaganda Machine
-And you tend to think in mindless catch-phrases as well...
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 06, 2013
Uh bite me?
Errr, no thanks! lol. I was sincere in my thanks. :-)
No, it would have every household which wants to have such protection.
It was in your context (natural disasters etc), not mine. So, since natural disasters etc happen all the time, here and there, your argument implies ALL households should be prepared 'to repel boarders' if and when 'the lights do go out' in your neighborhood. Now you want to limit it to just 'some' households (yours but not everyone else's)? Arguing 'wanting it both ways', aren't you?
No, every time something happens you want to enact still more restrictive 'reasonable measures'... We already have all the reasonable measures we need.
Senseless preventable tragedies involved indicate present laws/situation NOT YET as good and reasonable as we can make it.

Increased population, increased stress/competition (especially in 'dog eat dog') societies, leads to increased conflict. More Guns proliferation is NRA 'solution?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2013
your argument implies ALL households should be prepared 'to repel boarders' if and when
-If and When they choose to do so. Which many already ARE. You want laws which would prevent them from doing this. You see how skewed your perspective is?
More Guns proliferation is NRA 'solution'
The sandy hook tragedy and the ensuing media blitz caused the biggest surge of gun-buying in US history. The greatest mistake that gunphobes like yourself make is to use your NRA buzzword. The PEOPLE voted the antigun legislators out of office, not the NRA.

The vast majority of voters favor gun ownership for protection. Its a fact. Every time you guys mention the NRA, membership goes up. Thats why you have reverted to 'reasonable measures' -type buzzwords.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 06, 2013
Guns are readily available in the US. ... Anyone who wants one can get one. This includes teenage gangsters. Any laws you wish to pass will NEVER affect THEIR ability to get a gun.
Those are the best arguments against proliferation of guns I have yet read here! Thanks, mate! :-)
In Britain, gun bans have created a market for fully-automatic weapons.
If unnecessary 'legal' proliferation was not an option AT ALL, that 'market' would also not be sustained.
"ASIAN gangs armed with shotguns and automatic weapons have emerged as the new threat to Greater Manchester's war on guns." -Millions of AKMs are sitting in third world warehouses waiting for markets in the US to open up.
More great arguments against unnecessary 'legal' proliferation! Thanks again! :-)
...you tend to think in mindless catch-phrases as well...
Why should NRA/Corporate shills have all the fun?

Here is another: "What's good for NRA goose can be used by opponents when it comes to sloganeering!" :-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2013
More great arguments against unnecessary 'legal' proliferation! Thanks again! :-)
So let me see if I understand you... Youre saying that because people can get fully-automatic guns on the street, there is less reason to provide guns legally? That does make sense in a brainless sort of way. Street guns do not come with warrantees however. Caveat emptor.

Britain is the victim capital of europe. More people are beaten, raped, and murdered more per capita in britain than on the mainland or in the US. This is because they dont have the means to protect themselves and the victimizers know it.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2013
If and When they choose to do so.
I was only following the logics of your 'natural disaster etc' rationalizations/generalizations. If every household at risk, then you imply every household should posses those weapons. Else there goes your rationales. You want it both ways, it seems.
...sandy hook tragedy, ensuing media blitz, caused biggest surge of gun-buying in US history .... The PEOPLE voted the antigun legislators out of office, not the NRA.
And the fear propaganda to paraniod gullibles had nothing at all to do with that 'panic buying' response? That's how advertising psychology works, mate. Get real.
The vast majority of voters favor gun ownership for protection...Every time you guys mention the NRA, membership goes up.
It's unnecessary proliferation, not total bans recommended, mate. NRA promotes "indiscriminate proliferation for profit"; and their advertising/propaganda works all too well on you and people like you, apparently. Nuff said, hey? :-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2013
then you imply every household should posses those weapons
No that is an artifact of your fractured mindset. Every person who wants a gun should have the right to own one. And the best one to have in such a scenario is an assault rifle. And those scenarios do happen.

"Hurricane Sandy... Locals said that the police presence in the neighborhood came after looters stole from banks, pharmacies and other shops with valuables [a little too late I guess].

"It's a crime that can almost be expected after a disaster. As Hurricane Irene pummeled the Atlantic Coast last year, looting was so prevalent that truTV put together a security footage slideshow of the crime. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was plagued with looting and violent attacks, The New York Times reported."
the fear propaganda to paraniod gullibles had nothing at all to do with that 'panic buying' response?
No it was a response to the possibility that paranoid gun laws would pass banning them. Obviously.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 06, 2013
....Youre saying that because people can get fully-automatic guns on the street, there is less reason to provide guns legally? That does make sense in a brainless sort of way. Street guns do not come with warrantees however. Caveat emptor.
You miss the point of reasonable laws and vigilant policing of same. Illegal guns are more easily moved/hidden by all the legal guns around being moved/stored on/in street/society. Making it more difficult to move/hide ANY guns (by checking on-the-spot) will make the illegal AND legal guns less ubiquitous/necessary on the street. As happens here. The LESS legal 'cover', the LESS illegal ones get through the net. Get it?
Britain is the victim capital of europe. More people are beaten, raped, and murdered more per capita in britain than on the mainland or in the US. This is because they dont have the means to protect themselves and the victimizers know it.
You conflate statistics. GUN murders? Murders in 'domestics'? Get honest. :-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2013
It's unnecessary proliferation, not total bans recommended, mate. NRA promotes "indiscriminate proliferation for profit"; and their advertising/propaganda works all too well on you and people like you
Again by invoking your NRA mantra you are shooting yourself in the foot.

"After the Sandy Hook tragedy in December of last year, many states jumped at the opportunity to use public outcry as the catalyst to impose gun restrictions on the citizens of their states.

"On Sept. 10, the public made their opinions known by forcing and winning a recall election of not only two hard core gun activists, but the head legislator in the Colorado Senate."

-This has happened quite frequently. Antigun legislators routinely lose their jobs. The NRA dont vote.
Illegal guns are more easily moved/hidden by all the legal guns around being moved/stored on/in street/society.
What because theyre harder to spot or something? Sniffing dogs get confused? 'Say son is that gun in your pants legal?"
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2013
But while many of his contemporaries, including George Washington, freed their slaves during and after the revolution — inspired, perhaps, by the words of the Declaration — Jefferson did not. Over the subsequent 50 years, a period of extraordinary public service, Jefferson remained the master of Monticello, and a buyer and seller of human beings.

Rather than encouraging his countrymen to liberate their slaves, he opposed both private manumission and public emancipation. Even at his death, Jefferson failed to fulfill the promise of his rhetoric: his will emancipated only five slaves, all relatives of his mistress Sally Hemings, and condemned nearly 200 others to the auction block.
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2013
Known for expansive views of citizenship, he proposed legislation to make emancipated blacks "outlaws" in America, the land of their birth. Opposed to the idea of royal or noble blood, he proposed expelling from Virginia the children of white women and black men.

And while he wrote a friend that he sold slaves only as punishment or to unite families, he sold at least 85 humans in a 10-year period to raise cash to buy wine, art and other luxury goods.

Destroying families didn't bother Jefferson, because he believed blacks lacked basic human emotions. "Their griefs are transient," he wrote, and their love lacked "a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation."

RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2013
Every person who wants a gun should have the right to own one. And the best .. in such a scenario is assault rifle. And those scenarios do happen.
You just confirmed the thrust of your 'natural disasters etc' rationale: "Everyone should have assault rifles." NRA proliferation propaganda works well on you!
"Hurricane Sandy... Locals said... police presence in neighborhood came after looters stole from banks, pharmacies and other shops with valuables.
So protecting money/property after disaster is paramount priority?
Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was plagued with looting and violent attacks,..."
Shows just how 'dog eat dog' those communities were, doesn't it? Poverty and injustice and legacy of neglect of fair/living wage etc policies lead to that mentality.
No it was a response to the possibility that paranoid gun laws would pass banning them.
Decades of NRA fear and 'dog eat dog' paranoia-purveying advertising didn't factor into it? :-)
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2013
Jefferson claimed he had "never seen an elementary trait of painting or sculpture" or poetry among blacks and argued that blacks' ability to "reason" was "much inferior" to whites', while "in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous." He conceded that blacks were brave, but this was because of "a want of fore-thought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present."

A scientist, Jefferson nevertheless speculated that blackness might come "from the color of the blood" and concluded that blacks were "inferior to the whites in the endowments of body and mind."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2013
The LESS legal 'cover', the LESS illegal ones get through the net. Get it?
Uh no you moron. Its not the guns which are illegal it is the ownership of those guns which is illegal for felons, gang members, mental defectives, etc. MY owning a gun does not enable a felon to own one. I would buy a gun legally. A felon would buy one on the street.
You conflate statistics. GUN murders? Murders in 'domestics'? Get honest.
Get rational. This sentence makes no sense.

"UK is violent crime capital of Europe... The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world... 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK... greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country... the most violent place in Europe... 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 .. America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000"

Fewer legal guns = more crime
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2013
So protecting money/property after disaster is paramount priority?
Protecting yourself and your family is certainly on most peoples minds during those times I would think.

"40 Rapes Reported In Hurricane Katrina, Rita Aftermath"
Shows just how 'dog eat dog' those communities were, doesn't it? Poverty and injustice and legacy of neglect of fair/living wage etc policies lead to that mentality
Ahaahaaa so crime is the victims fault. Youre an idiot.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 06, 2013
[Again by invoking your NRA mantra you are shooting yourself in the foot.
I invoke NRA because they have spread their poisonous mercenary tentacles and propaganda, and bought/blackmailed influence on politician stooges, into Australia. We don't want to go the way you are going over there for a while now. Is it so bad of us not to want to end up like your shoot-em-ups 'dog eat dog' mentality/society?
"After the Sandy Hook... many states jumped at the opportunity to use public outcry as the catalyst to impose gun restrictions...
How awful of them, to want less proliferation! (sarcasm).

"...public made their opinions known by forcing and winning a recall election of..two hard core gun activists,...[&] head legislator in the Colorado Senate."...The NRA dont vote. Advertising and propagandizing gullibles into remote-controlled zombies is what advertising/propagandizing it's all about.

And legal guns proliferating increases illegal (stolen, lost etc) gun supply/crime. :-)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 06, 2013
Uh no you moron.
Wow, I'm getting gladder by the post that you don't know who I am or where I live. You own a gun which can quickly and effeciently kill your 'mulitple enemies' at long range, yes? Scary, as your tone becomes more shrill and insulting/emotional. Not pleasant to realize someone so 'emotional' is allowed to legally own and carry ANY sort of gun. Brrr!

Any background checks for 'instability' etc when you purchased yours?

Its not the guns which are illegal it is the ownership of those guns which is illegal for felons, gang members, mental defectives, etc. MY owning a gun does not enable a felon to own one. I would buy a gun legally. A felon would buy one on the street.
You missed my point earlier. More legal guns around, more stolen/lost/trafficked/misused guns. Get it now?

Cool down, matey; you'e not doing the NRA/Gun Lobby 'case' any favors by coming across so 'emotional' and 'ready to shoot' your 'many enemies' like in a Video Game. Bye. :-)

RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 06, 2013
Protecting yourself and your family is certainly on most peoples minds during those times I would think.
As it should be. No question or arguments there, mate. :-)

"40 Rapes Reported In Hurricane Katrina, Rita Aftermath"
How much worse would it have been to have gun battles all over the place? And all the rest of the crimes still happening? Apparently your underpinning 'dog eat dog' mentality and economic/community policies lead to such breakdowns in law and order on GRAND SCALES there. Have you thought about why that is? Education, Wages, Injustice, Poverty etc etc predicate on demonizing/blaming the ones who can't make it in such a society? Nah. You have your gun to 'solve' all that and keep you warm at night.
Shows just how 'dog eat dog' those communities were, doesn't it? Poverty and injustice and legacy of neglect of fair/living wage etc policies lead to that mentality.
Huh? How in the name of 'comprehension' do you get that from what I said above? Scary!
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
RealityCheck

The LESS legal 'cover', the LESS illegal ones get through the net. Get it?


thats not how it works in reality. and i think you know it. maybe in white suburbia gated communities with private police forces that exceed a ratio of 1 cop per five residents...

making law abiding citizens helpless wont make criminals harmless. in fact, it only emboldens the criminal.

making "gun free" zones only guarantee's that a criminal has a good chance of succeeding in his act when he wants. OUR schools around here have ARMED cops that are present when children are, during or after school hours. we PROTECT our children.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
RealityCheck
Shows just how 'dog eat dog' those communities were, doesn't it? Poverty and injustice and legacy of neglect of fair/living wage etc policies lead to that mentality


and you think taking away their right to defend themselves will help these people? i am not sure i understand your motivation here. you are suggesting that by making more people targets, the criminals will go away. you may argue that point, RC, but that is essentially what yoru arguments are boiling down to right now.

this makes no sense. i understand that you THINK that what is needed is a cultural change for the sake of the betterment of the species, but that will ONLY work within the norms, or the willing, which would be the law abiding citizen... this is NOT going to work for the criminal, as the criminal is the outlier and is a factor that you cannot include in your utopia or your numbers.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
RealityCheck
again, the change/shift in morality and outlook is fine and may work for those willing to follow the lead, and it may even create a small pocket of change, however, it will not be a sweeping, all inclusive change, and therefor is ineffective, and not something you can consider reality based. any decision that is not well grounded in reality will only lead to failure.

the ONLY way to force that kind of change is through... well... FORCE. and then you end up with the argument of who's morality should be the ONE morality that is dominant. when you do that, you consign the species to either total annihilation from without, or gradual death from an internal rot and corruption.

the species survived BECAUSE of the mentality that you condemn. to continue to survive, we need that mentality, we just need to develop better logic/judgement skills. having a gin does not make you a killer any more than having a spoon you fat. it is all in how it is USED.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
RealityCheck
You missed my point earlier. More legal guns around, more stolen/lost/trafficked/misused guns. Get it now?


this is like saying "more pencils around, more misspelled words" ... the gun is a TOOL.
the REALITY of it is this: the more CRIMINALS are around, the more stolen/lost/trafficked/misused guns. THAT is how THAT works.

the PROBLEM is the violence in the species and the criminal mindset. NOT guns. there is nothing being done to address the PROBLEM... as everyone finds it easier to assign blame to the tool. if you want to do that, we should start licensing carpenters as deadly weapons, as more people die each year in US from screwdrivers or hammers than guns. maybe license chefs too, as more people die from knives than guns too... in fact, more die from automobiles... perhaps we should have a Concealed carry for cars? make professional drivers deadly weapons?
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
RealityCheck
Is it so bad of us not to want to end up like your shoot-em-ups 'dog eat dog' mentality/society?


this argument works both ways. many people feel that using GB or AUS as a shining example of gun control will help people accept gun control restrictions. it will not. apples and oranges. the mentality difference.

i grew up overseas. spent 90% of my life overseas from the US. i feel that the CHOICE that the constitution gives me as a citizen is better than being forced to be a victim. you thin you have a better society. CHOICE. i accept yours, now consider ours.

it really is NOT so much about gog-eat-dog. i dont particularly LIKE killing. but that does not mean i am willing to lie down and become a victim.

as i said before, the issue is NOT guns, nor their proliferation. it is about the criminal mentality and their propensity for violence. period.

anything else, and we might as well ban sugar and fats because there is an obesity problem. same thing!
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
@RealityCheck

p.s. sorry about the spelling... I am having problems with the site... keeps hanging up and such. gins=guns, gog-eat-dog = dog-eat-dog, etc, etc, etc...

like I said, I understand your arguments, but you are not really addressing the problem, you are only addressing what you perceive is the problem. there is a difference. it is not the tool that is the underlying problem, it is the criminal. it is the thought process that allows the criminal to use extreme violence as a means to an end, mostly an insignificant end at that.

people think banning guns affects criminals, it does not. it only affects the victims of crime. criminals don't care about laws. I have investigated many, and none cared whatsoever about the law. in fact, most knew they were breaking the law, but figured it was worth it. THIS is the issue... NOT guns.

PEACE
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
Hi Capt Stumpy. :) Please don't misunderstand. I do NOT want to dictate what your country should do. We 'foreigners' (and friends, in my/Aussie's case) are merely DISCUSSING with you across the internet, using examples. That's it. We compare situations. Sure. You have different needs. Sure. Never said any different. Yes? The point IS about UNFETTERED proliferation as the NRA etc would like it for their profits, and anyone believing different is fooling no-one but themselves, for whatever reason. Observations re your present/recent US culture of 'shoot-to-solve' is public record, and needs no more comment. When guns become so ubiquitous, every 'domestic' and 'crazy episode' has greater potential for MASS tragedy than if they were reasonably limited to legitimate needs/owners/situations like you/yours. It's NRA propaganda that 'solution' to your present legacy of 'dog eat dog' and 'first past the post and damn the rest' tragedies is "MORE guns" that rankles as crazy beyond belief! :-)
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
Apparently your underpinning... such a society?


one last point. making grand accusations is easy. perhaps we could also say that the education system and mousy/sheep mentality of Britain and Australia make for a society that allows criminals and tyrants to live comfortable lives...

it still does NOTHING to fix the problem. education only works for those who accept the process. just like Tyrants only have power with people who are willing to be subjugated. this applies to politics, period. they have power because the people allow it.

for those who think making cultural / education changes will fix the problem, or teaching their citizens to be subjects will make it all better, just remember, this has been tried. Britain tried it with their colonies... we know how that ended.

it all boils down to choices. you can TRY all you like to make sweeping changes, there will ALWAYS be outliers. this is how we evolved.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 07, 2013
...one last point. making grand accusations is easy. perhaps we could also say that the education system and mousy/sheep mentality of Britain and Australia make for a society that allows criminals and tyrants to live comfortable lives...

it still does NOTHING to fix the problem. education only works for those who accept the process. just like Tyrants only have power with people who are willing to be subjugated.

for those who think making cultural / education changes will fix the problem, or teaching their citizens to be subjects will make it all better, just remember, this has been tried. Britain tried it with their colonies... we know how that ended.
Take a moment and consider: The last 2000 years has been a process of advancing "civilization". Education and Science has helped make the world better since ignorance and violence reigned supreme. Yes? Let's keep it up rather than go backwards. Peace, mate. :-)
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
yes, like i said, i understand where you are coming from. However, many do not.

but you are still not addressing the core problem. the core problem is not the NRA, nor is it guns. it is criminals and criminal violence. using culture and making statements like "shoot-to-solve" only skews the perspective and shows ignorance by adding your personal grievance to the discussion. it may seem apparent to YOU that our culture is the issue... just like it seems apparent that you do not like the NRA. that is your choice. this also exacerbates the problem by hiding the issue, and the CORE problem.

the ONLY way to address the issue is to address the core problem. no other way around it. if, and ONLY IF, there is a proliferation of mass shootings AFTER this problem is addressed and is a NON issue, then you can make sweeping statement about guns and culture, etc. but that will NEVER happen, as the outliers will always be there.
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
Take a moment and consider: The last 2000 years has been a process of advancing "civilization". Education and Science has helped make the world better since ignorance and violence reigned supreme. Yes? Let's keep it up rather than go backwards. Peace, mate. :-)


sage advice.

so... (again) how do you address the anomalies and outliers? THIS is something that should be addressed... and then SHOULD you do anything about it? is it moral?

personally, I would LOVE to see science and logic rule the day. but I also that know that this is a dream.

PEACE
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 07, 2013
The last 2000 years has been a process of advancing "civilization".

Then in such an advanced civilization no one should be concerned if anyone carries a firearm.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 07, 2013
Would RC call this 'civilizing'?
From Peter Drucker, 1969:
""For seventy years or so – from the 1890's to the 1960's – mankind, especially in the developed countries, was hypnotized by government. We were in love with it and saw no limits to its abilities, or to its good intentions.""
"This belief has been, in effect, only one facet of a much more general illusion from which the educated and the intellectuals in particular have suffered: that by turning tasks over to government, conflict and decision would be made to go away. Once the "wicked private interests" had been eliminated, a decision as to the right course of action would be rational and automatic. There would be neither selfishness nor political passion. Belief in government was thus largely a romantic escape from politics and from responsibility."
http://www.cato.o...vernment
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (19) Nov 07, 2013
"Fighting back against the crude stereotype of Tea Partiers drawn by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), a black Tea Party group based in South Central Los Angeles has launched a campaign against Grayson's corporate sponsors. The South Central Los Angeles Tea Party called on donors to Grayson on Monday to cut support after Grayson compared the Tea Party to the Ku Klux Klan in a mailer. "
http://www.breitb...-Grayson
A racist democrat? But then democrat Byrd was a KKK member and leader.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 07, 2013
Education and science will eventually solve the "problem", at least this set of problems, then we'll move on to another set....

Culture is the problem. The guns and violence are symptoms of a culture that has an infection. You're not going to cure an infection by giving someone anti-nausea medication, or something for their irritating cough...

Murdering someone should (in my opinion and according to my values) be reviled and placed in the same category as a pedophile. They should be pariahs. Instead we make movies about them (gangsters and hit men) like they're "cool guys". Has anyone ever had the displeasure of seeing a movie where the protagonist raped children? Didn't think so.... there's a GOOD reason for that and it's called culture.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2013
The guns and violence are symptoms of a culture that has an infection.
Tribalism is not a culture. It is biology. It is NORMAL

"the confinement of sympathy to the same tribe" must have been the rule. This was for him one of the chief causes of the low morality of the savages. "Primeval man", he argued, "regarded actions as good or bad solely as they obviously affected the welfare of the tribe, not of the species". Among the living tribal peoples, he added, "the virtues are practised almost exclusively in relation to the men of the same tribe" and the corresponding vices "are not regarded as crimes" if practised on other tribes" Darwin, 1871
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

-Cultures seek to modify the tribal dynamic. Criminals and gangs do not identify with the cultures around them and instinctively seek to prey upon outsiders to better their tribe. This endangers the law-abiding citizen.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2013
""For seventy years or so – from the 1890's to the 1960's – mankind, especially in the developed countries, was hypnotized by government. We were in love with it and saw no limits to its abilities, or to its good intentions.""
Obviously ryggy does not identify with the prevailing tribe. But we must realize that if ryggsters were ever to seize power in this country, their bureaucracy would soon grow to resemble the one they usurped. This is always the case.
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2013
"Grayson compared the Tea Party to the Ku Klux Klan in a mailer." - RyggTard

An apt. comparison.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 08, 2013
""Actually, there are parallels between the firearm bans and registration requirements enacted by the Weimar Republic and those proposed by President Obama," Halbrook, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, told The Daily Caller when asked what he would say to those who will argue making such a comparison sounds a bit hysterical. "Only law-abiding persons obeyed those laws. Weimar authorities warned that the lists of gun owners must not fall into the hands of 'radical elements.' The lists fell right into the hands of the Nazis when they assumed power. Gun owner data can be misused by the government today just as it did in the IRS scandal, and it can be hacked for nefarious purposes."

Read more: http://dailycalle...k1n61LXJ
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 08, 2013
"Niger Innis, a well-known black tea party activist, is seriously contemplating a Republican run for a U.S. House seat in Nevada in 2014.

Read more: http://dailycalle...k1ncHdiL

This will be great. Anyone who opposes him can be labeled a racist.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (19) Nov 08, 2013
Sorry Rygg, I must disagree. Only opposing a black progressive is considered by the media as racism. If he runs, watch the Progressives attack him with vile racial slurs, but it wont be considered racism.... ... Progressives never are racist (sarcasm off).
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 08, 2013
Sorry Rygg, I must disagree. Only opposing a black progressive is considered by the media as racism. If he runs, watch the Progressives attack him with vile racial slurs, but it wont be considered racism.... ... Progressives never are racist (sarcasm off).

Any minority that no longer wants to be a victim of racism should join a tea party. 'Liberals' will no longer judge you by any minority category.
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2013
GOP precinct chair booted after racist Daily Show interview now blasts 'gutless' Republican Party

http://www.dailyk...n-Party#
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2013
Colin Powell's former chief of staff: GOP is 'full of racists'

http://www.washin...racists/
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2013
"Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists," Col. Lawrence Wilkerson said Friday on MSNBC's "The Ed Show." "And the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander in chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin. And that's despicable."

http://www.washin...racists/
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2013
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.

http://en.wikiped...strategy
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (19) Nov 08, 2013
"What Reid never mentions is that the minimum figure for DGUs is about 760,000 a year (see John R. Lott's, More Guns, Less Crime). These figures are compiled from polls by the LA Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart Research Associates. And if you divide 760,000 by the 52 weeks of a year, it works out to about 14,615 DGUs a week--slightly more than 2,082 a day.

Here's the kicker--according to some of the polls Lott compiled in his work, annual DGUs could top three million.

Lott adds: "Even if these estimates are wrong by a very large factor, they still suggest that defensive gun use is very common."

The bottom line: Guns are lifesavers, and when criminals alone have guns then law-abiding citizens will have no way to defend or save their own lives. "
http://www.breitb...fesavers
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2013
Resigned GOP Chair Unapologetic Over Racist Remarks, Calls Republican Party 'Gutless'

http://www.mediai...gutless/
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2013
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus Admits That the Republican Party Platform Is Racist

http://www.politi...ist.html

VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2013

The real story of the shutdown: 50 years of GOP race-baiting

http://www.salon....baiting/
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2013
"The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations."

"No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against." - Heritage Foundation

VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2013
"Sadly, Republicans today are driven by hate, racism and intolerance' - Capitol Hill Blue
"I spent most of my 15 years in politics either working for GOP members of Congress or the committees that support their party or dealing — often with difficulty — with those who genuflect to the vocal right wing that controls the party of the elephant.

Although I never registered as a Republican or considered myself a party member, I took their money and looked the other way when it came to the GOP's disgraceful, disruptive and dangerous beliefs and activities.

I finally walked away when a GOP consulting firm ordered me to craft a campaign that would smear gays with lies and innuendos because that community supported the opponent of the Republican candidate represented by the firm."

http://www.capito...de/49509

VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2013
More than one Republican has defended his racism not with a denial of his own racist beliefs but instead by pointing out that long-time West Virginia Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan. They fail to mention that the late Senator spent most of his remaining years in office apologizing and trying legislatively to make up for that period in his life.

The hatred and personal vendettas of Gingrich continues with Republicans on Capitol Hill today. The rabid right-wing that controls the party is driven by a tea party agenda that is racist in nature and intolerant in practice.

http://www.capito...de/49509

Isn't it interesting that RyggTard did just that two days ago in this very thread?

VendicarE
2.2 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2013
Racism and the GOP

Republicans who keep saying that the GOP isn't racist should ask themselves, why is it that racists today are almost always Republican?

http://nbclatino....the-gop/
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2013
"We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races." - Council of Conservative Citizens

http://topconserv...nciples/
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 09, 2013
"A poll of European Jews has found that more than three-quarters of those questioned believe anti-Semitism is on the rise in their home countries and close to one-third have considered emigrating because they don't feel safe."
http://www.breitb...Semitism
Euro's are tolerant?
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2013
"A poll of European Jews has found that more than three-quarters of those questioned believe anti-Semitism is on the rise in their home countries" - RyggTard

Which is always coincident with the rise of Conservativism in those countries.

Poor RyggTard. He just stepped in another Conservative turd.

"Ayn Rand's thinking is merely a dog whistle for racists. It's just a philosophy for people who are tired of being called racists because their beliefs are racist. It has been for decades, and it's time to stop pretending it's anything else." - http://www.dailyk...-racist#
kochevnik
1 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2013
I wondered about the connection between neurosis and conservatism:

Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian, Wednesday 13 August 2003 02.33 BST

A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality".
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2013
"The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population
I seriously doubt this. People with the initiative and the courage to leave their incipient cultures and come here have got to be brighter than those who remain behind. And after a few gens the percentage of indigenes with substandard IQs has to grow.

Immigration is why this country is great. It is an excellent way of separating wheat from chaff.
"A poll of European Jews has found that more than three-quarters of those questioned believe anti-Semitism is on the rise
Europe has on average the highest pop density on the planet. It takes very little growth to destabilize it. Immigration-driven backlash against all minorities is increasing.
http://en.wikiped...l_party)

-And not just in europe:
http://abcnews.go...20841826
freethinking
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 10, 2013
I love it when Progressives try to label conservatives as having mental disorders, it shows how deluded they actually are. Statistics show that:
Most murderers are progressive
Most mass murderers are progressives
Most people in poverty are progressives
Most rapists are progressives
Most pedophiles are progressives
Most tax cheats are progressives
Most drug dealers are progressives
Most pimps are progressives
and the list goes on....But mind you since progressives lie, cheat, steal you don't know if they actually believe what they say, or just want you to believe what they say. Just like Obama when he lied, then lied about lying about lying.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2013
Statistics show that:
Most murderers are progressive
Most mass murderers are progressives
Most people in poverty are progressives
Most rapists are progressives
Most pedophiles are progressives
Most tax cheats are progressives
Most drug dealers are progressives
Most pimps are progressives
and the list goes on....But mind you since progressives lie, cheat, steal you don't know if they actually believe what they say, or just want you to believe what they say. Just like Obama when he lied, then lied about lying about lying.
Most of these people dont care about politics. Most pedos are priests. Youre an idiot but youre not progressive are you?

You are pretty obviously a bigot but I know you get that from your idiot religion, which says that unbelievers are necessarily evil and it is ok to persecute them which you would gladly do if secular law forbade it. But you wont buy flowers or wedding cakes from them which is the current extent of your power. Does it satisfy you?
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 10, 2013
Otto,
As a percentage, there are more pedophiles working for the school system today than has ever been involved with the Catholic (or any)church. While practically all churches have put in place procedures to protect children against pedophiles, teacher unions are currently protecting pedophiles in their mists. However since the majority of the media is progressive and since pedophiles being protected by progressive teacher unions isn't conducive to promoting hatred against churches, the blackout on these facts by Progressive news organizations will continue.
http://www.smithh.../?p=1862
http://cal-cathol...ile-law/
http://daattorah....ect.html
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 10, 2013
Otto,
While I agree that most criminals don't care about politics, most criminals including pedophiles support and vote democrats.

But then again, don't let facts get in your way.



kochevnik
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 11, 2013
Conservative neurotics like freetard create the idealized image. Once freetard identifies with the idealized image, a number of effects follow. Freetard will make claims on others and on life based on the prestige freetard feels entitled to because of the idealized image. Freetard will impose a rigorous set of standards on himself in order to attempt to actually measure up to what the idealized image is. Freetard will cultivate pride, and with that will come the vulnerabilities associated with pride that lacks a foundation of real esteem. Finally, freetard will hate and despise oneself for all one's factual limitations, which keep getting in the way and threatening to pop the bubble. Vicious circles operate to strengthen all of these factors.

Eventually, as freetard ages, one particular "solution" to all the inner conflicts and vulnerabilities will solidify. Freetard will become expansive and will display symptoms of narcissism, perfectionism, or vindictiveness.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (12) Nov 12, 2013
Conservative neurotics like freetard create the idealized image. Once freetard identifies with the idealized image, a number of effects follow. Freetard will make claims on others and on life based on the prestige freetard feels entitled to because of the idealized image. Freetard will impose a rigorous set of standards on himself in order to attempt to actually measure up to what the idealized image is. Freetard will cultivate pride, and with that will come the vulnerabilities associated with pride that lacks a foundation of real esteem. Finally, freetard will hate and despise oneself for all one's factual limitations, which keep getting in the way and threatening to pop the bubble. Vicious circles operate to strengthen all of these factors.



Oh, the irony.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (12) Nov 12, 2013
I disagree. That is what a FREE press and an informed citizenship (along with a true choice of political parties) is for.


I agree too. Now suppose the state takes away that freedom, as it does quite often and as history shows. Then what?
We mind. And we kick their asses when they do. There's still quite a few people who remember the Stasi. I would have hoped that other countries would have learned from that example. But I guess it looks like this is something everyone must experience for themselves to believe it.


And the Nazis took away guns, one would think the Germans would learn lessons there too.

I'd advise you to travel a bit. You'll quickly find out that the things you think you know about the world don't mesh with reality.


No one's perspective meshes with reality. Including mine, and including yours. Culture gives us amazing advantages and power...it also blinds the hell out of us. Some of us just make it more obvious than others..
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (12) Nov 12, 2013
The more any government or person allows for pluralities and differences amongst people the more effective and well adjusted said will be respectively.

You don't want people to have guns? Tough. Deal with it. As long as they're not breaking your leg or picking your pocket it isn't for you to dictate their values, their worldview, their morals, or anything else. Your FEAR is about YOU. Sit with it, talk to it, make peace with it and leave other people the hell alone if they do you the same kindness....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2013
Otto,
While I agree that most criminals don't care about politics, most criminals including pedophiles support and vote democrats.

But then again, don't let facts get in your way
Well I wont but youve got to present some first. Hint: foul, bigoted preconceptions are not facts.

The overwhelming majority of inmates are religious and were raised in a religious and I assume a conservative environment.
http://holysmoke....-pri.htm

-I assume that at least some of them choose to victimize others because your holy books condone and demand it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2013
The last 2000 years has been a process of advancing "civilization".

Then in such an advanced civilization no one should be concerned if anyone carries a firearm.


Did you miss where I said it was a process. I have also pointed out that we are in transition from ancient mindsets to future mindsets. This PRESENT state is a 'messy' transitional situation where the old legacies and the new advances are still clashing and slowly evolving to a new equilibrium between individualism and social necessity and common sense, free of all the old hatreds and stupidities based on ignorance and superstition and race/fear driven conflicts. What do you think has been happening around us over the last couple centuries? The global political/national/knowledge evolutions are happening as we speak. Don't give up before we come out the other side of this transitional state, ok? :-)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2013
Would RC call this 'civilizing'?
From Peter Drucker, 1969:
""For seventy years or so – from the 1890's to the 1960's – mankind, especially in the developed countries, was hypnotized by government. We were in love with it and saw no limits to its abilities, or to its good intentions.""
"This belief has been, in effect, only one facet of a much more general illusion from which the educated and the intellectuals in particular have suffered: that by turning tasks over to government, conflict and decision would be made to go away. Once the "wicked private interests" had been eliminated, a decision as to the right course of action would be rational and automatic. There would be neither selfishness nor political passion. Belief in government was thus largely a romantic escape from politics and from responsibility."
http://www.cato.o...vernment
Like I said, mate, it's a process that never stops. Ancient idiocies versus new knowledge. We evolve toward social workability.:)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2013
"Fighting back against the crude stereotype of Tea Partiers drawn by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), a black Tea Party group based in South Central Los Angeles has launched a campaign against Grayson's corporate sponsors. The South Central Los Angeles Tea Party called on donors to Grayson on Monday to cut support after Grayson compared the Tea Party to the Ku Klux Klan in a mailer. "
http://www.breitb...-Grayson
A racist democrat? But then democrat Byrd was a KKK member and leader.

Forgive the levity, mate; but from over here in Oz, it looks more like a "Mad Hatters' Tea Party" than anything else. If such are your 'solution' for present ills, you haven't been watching the extreme and unthinking obstructionist insensibility that has characterized them and the party whom they have blackmailed/threatened the GOP moderates into going along with their craziness aimed at personal power than good of the nation. Good luck with that! :-)
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013
their craziness

THEIR craziness?
Tea parties believe in the rule of law, the US Constitution, which the present socialist regime lead by BHO is violating every chance he can while the old school 'liberal' Republicans do not oppose the creeping socialism. More govt control of every thing will empower the 'liberal' Republican IFF they ever get re-elected.
A recent survey of US presidents for the last 100 years puts Reagan at the top and BHO at the bottom.
What is 'moderate' about supporting the end of liberty?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013
How does one moderately oppose such lawlessness?

"As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.

Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. It's not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. It's not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass — the Dream Act — by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws."
http://www.washin...?hpid=z3

"Communist Party Chair: Save Obamacare by Calling Detractors Racist"
http://www.breitb...e-Debate
Compromise with evil and evil wins.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2013
THEIR craziness?
Tea parties believe in the rule of law, the US Constitution, which the present socialist regime lead by BHO is violating every chance he can while the old school 'liberal' Republicans do not oppose the creeping socialism. More govt control of every thing will empower the 'liberal' Republican IFF they ever get re-elected.
A recent survey of US presidents for the last 100 years puts Reagan at the top and BHO at the bottom.
What is 'moderate' about supporting the end of liberty?
What they do in reality belies their professed aims/motivations. They are extremist. You know what extremists are. Ask any reasonable person on either side of the political divide. What you call 'creeping socialism' is adaptation of social systems which must survive the stresses of all the competing calls on that society. Sensible reforms will survive. Extremist reforms self-destruct (as history shows). Reagan began the DEBT SLIDE which the mad hatters bemoan in their propaganda. Liberty?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013
Following the law is extreme?
They are extremist.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Goldwater
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013
"A Lansing, Michigan man with a concealed weapons permit uses his gun to shoot the "knockout game" attacker. The attacker survives two gun shot wounds and promptly landed in jail."
"Weaver was shot twice, in the leg and an inch away from his spine. He's been sentenced to a year in jail for the attack, but he admits he's getting off easy.

"It was just a lesson learned. I wish I hadn't played the game at all," said Weaver.

But Weaver say's this wasn't the first time he'd played it. Before he was caught, he and his friends had attacked random people on several occasions. [...]"
http://www.thegat...-permit/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013
From Al Sharpton of all people:
"It is an alarming trend that is spurring outrageous incidents across the country. It is deplorable, reprehensible and inexcusable. It is insane thuggery, and it is unequivocally wrong. These kids are targeting innocent people, and in many cases specifically targeting Jewish folks. We would not be silent if it were the other way around, and we will not be silent now. This behavior is racist, period. And we will not tolerate it. …"
http://www.thebla...t-game/#
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013
""We can't blame the 'Knockout Game' on racism," writes Michael Cottman on BlackAmericaWeb.com. "This has nothing to do with racial profiling. It has nothing to do with Republicans or the Tea Party. It has nothing to do with white supremacists. It has nothing to do with 'stand your ground' laws. This is about an evil that has taken hold of some of our young black men, our sons, our children, and we are fighting for their souls. … [Black] America needs to take ownership of this problem – and figure it out – before it's too late.""
http://www.csmoni...it-video
Who is extreme here?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 29, 2013
"One man was stomped to death and another man nearly killed in a racist amusement called the "knock-out game," currently being played by black teenagers. The victims were both white, and that fact needs to be raised in our national conversation about race.

Read more: http://www.americ...m4srcj7I
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
This article is over two years old.
Could it be that BHO's waning popularity is stiffening the spines of some 'liberals'?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2013
@FreeOfThinking Thomas Jefferson never once defended the institution of slavery. Not once. Unlike many in the Democratic party.
"Pursue Indians to extermination" - Thomas Jefferson
"The Indian country (100 million) must be destroyed" - George Washington

80% of the 1800 US Federal budget was set for killing native Americans and stealing their land
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013
"Tiffany Thompson got her wish: Demetrius Murphy met the "Right Person" and he will not be playing the Knockout Game any more. Ever.

A St. Louis homeowner shot Murphy dead late last week during a burglary. And a whole lot of people in St. Louis feel relieved, if not safer. "
"The pace of the Knockout Game picked up in other places with other victims. That is when Tiffany Thompson made her wish at a news site reporting the results of the latest St. Louis victim:

"As a black woman i will say this, i wish they would run into the right person who is armed to defend themselves with a firearm…i bet we will see a drastic decrease in violence in our city. it is embarrassing and shameful – the image these losers portray of blacks in st louis. - See more at: http://www.libert...QcJ.dpuf
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013
koch:
"A famine deliberately engineered by the regime of Josef Stalin 70 years ago claimed millions of lives, mostly in Ukraine but also in some other parts of the Soviet Union. It is today considered one of the worst atrocities of the Soviet regime and a terrifying act of genocide. Even so, the famine of 1933 is relatively unknown. RFE/RL correspondent Askold Krushelnycky examines the reasons behind this and reports on a campaign to draw attention to the atrocity. "

"In Imperial Russia in the first half of the 19th century one third of the population were serfs, who like slaves in the Americas, had the status of chattels and could be bought and sold."
http://www.bbc.co...r1.shtml
kochevnik
1 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2013
"In Imperial Russia in the first half of the 19th century one third of the population were serfs, who like slaves in the Americas
Indeed what saved native Americans from extinction was their use as slaves

Christian newspaper advertisements claims girls as young as three years served dual purposes: Good for both labor and lust
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2013
Following the law is extreme?

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Goldwater
Are "mad hatters" the best judge of what is "liberty" and "pursuit of justice" and "moderation and extremism"? How will they tell the difference if they are insensible and unreasonable and extreme?

As to your quote mining, here is an important and pertinent one for all the ages, and not just this present one:

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."-----Samuel Johnson.

For 'scoundrel' read crazies/extremists, corporate crooks/shills, crooked/mercenary politicians, and Mad Hatters Tea Party-ists who would rather destroy/sabotage than give up stupidity and self-assured arrogant claims to being right on all things.

Why do you keep posting incidences common to all societies? Individual cases occur through the ages in every system. Guns/extremism and violence/sabotage for religious, political mercenary motives are not 'good'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013
Real, what is extreme about obeying and enforcing the law?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 29, 2013
"we need to realize that Team Obama is simply nominating those who share their goal of radically changing America.

Most Americans have a hard time understanding this because they refuse to believe Obama is this extreme. But he is. For a year prior to his election conservatives warned voters that everything we knew about Obama indicated that his views were far from the mainstream."
"hese appointees hail from the crowd who regard their pedigree as the 60's activists who cheered on the Vietcong, while American boys were slaughtered in the jungles of Vietnam. They hate America, or more precisely, they hate America's heritage; American institutions, and the American Constitution."
"More importantly, Americans need to realize their views are Obama's views.

The American media is partly responsible for bringing such extremists to power. There is little doubt the media engaged in a massive propaganda effort to convince Americans that Obama was some kind of hip moderate"
http://www.westernjou
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 29, 2013
"Trevor Loudon, an author and blogger from New Zealand who has spoken to over 200 tea party groups in 30 states, decried the "normalcy bias" that blinds Americans from seeing a future America without liberty, the Constitution and military strength in an interview with The Daily Caller."
"Loudon noted the irony of President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies calling the tea party "extremists" and "terrorists."

The tea party, he said, is the "most patriotic, gentlemanly, fair-minded, generous, peaceful people — the exact opposite of terrorists. Yet, you have people in your Congress, mostly in the Democratic Party, who are allied to supporters of North Korea and Iran and Venezuela and Cuba and Communist China."

Read more: http://dailycalle...m5uO92Js
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 29, 2013
" got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word – Neville Chamberlain on Adolf Hitler, 1938

I spoke personally with President Rouhani of Iran earlier this fall. Secretary Kerry has met multiple times with Iran's Foreign Minister. Today, that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure. – Barack Obama announcing his new agreement with Iran, 11/23/13

If he being young and unskillful seeks to gamble for silver and gold; Take his money my son, praising Allah, the fool was made to be sold! – Hafez, Persian poet, Divān, 1365 (est)"
http://www.trevorloudon.com/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 30, 2013
Extremist BHO:
""Isn't it very amazing that we have a United States federal government that is starting to sound like a very cheap retailer?" West said. "I don't think that, once again, helps the confidence and the credibility of this administration. No poll-tested, market-driven little gimmick is going to solve this issue. The American people are very concerned."

West also outlined a few Republican fixes for the health care law, including establishing high-risk pools and breaking down "state-by-state mini-monopolies" to promote competition.

Read more: http://dailycalle...m7sIGirH
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 30, 2013
@Real: "The media are reluctant to cover the epidemic of "knockout" attacks because the subject matter makes them uncomfortable, Vanderbilt Professor Carol Swain told The Daily Caller in an exclusive interview."
""I see a worsening of the situation in the black community under President Obama and some of this has to do with roving gangs of young people," Swain said.

Read more: http://dailycalle...m7sxpla1

"Chris Lane Murderer Posted Racist Tweets"
http://www.realcl...097.html
"A group of those whom Eric Holder described as "his people," at least six young men, repeatedly punched a 24-year-old white woman in the face, then proceeded to kick her face over and over when she was on the ground helpless. "
http://www.americ...ple.html
Holder is the Attorney General.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 30, 2013
"The attorney general worries about protecting his 15-year-old son from supposed white racists like George Zimmerman. But his own office warns that the No. 1 threat to black teens is black teens."
"But less than two years ago, the Justice Department conducted a comprehensive study that found the real concern for African-American parents like Holder isn't the George Zimmermans of the world. It's increasingly violent black youths like Martin, who broke Zimmerman's nose and repeatedly bashed his head on the pavement before being shot through the heart.

The November 2011 study concluded that "young black males were disproportionately involved in homicide compared with their proportion of the population."

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.inves...m7vOeSqC
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2013
"The attorney general worries about protecting his 15-year-old son from supposed white racists like George Zimmerman. But his own office warns that the No. 1 threat to black teens is black teens."
What the....??? That above 'rationalization' effectively implies that on top of the usual criminal/senseless/crazy violence, any more which is due to RACIST motives should not be minimized/discouraged for its own sake irrespective of the statistical take' on violence overall....just because its only "in addition to" all the rest of the madness???? Please stop with this pointless litany of 'the usual suspect' instances of senseless violence and opinions which miss the point, mate. It's not doing the exposition of your stance any good at all. :)
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 30, 2013
I am not missing the point, RC, but you seem to be ignoring the extremism of the racist, socialist leaders of the US and prefer to call those who are opposed to these socialists extreme.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Dec 01, 2013
I am not missing the point, RC, but you seem to be ignoring the extremism of the racist, socialist leaders of the US and prefer to call those who are opposed to these socialists extreme.

Mate, all you've done so far is point out 'usual suspects' instances afflicting any social system in transition from old to modern mindsets/situations/possibilities. Nothing but dreary examples of individual/group behaviors/motivations of human failings. Period. All the gun violence and racist/ethnic hatreds are 'legacy' problems on top of that. This legacy must be slowly negated via evolution of society to more informed/tolerant and respectful states not driven by fear, intolerance, paranoia and political/mercenary 'manufactured' divisions and dog-eat-dog 'excuses' for violence and madness while crying "Patriotism!", "Religion/God!" etc. thus adding to the problem, instead of reducing levels of ancient ignorance/superstitions and hatreds/fears. It's in the 'tone', and yours is PARANOIA. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Dec 01, 2013
So RC, the transition form a liberty loving society with a rule of law, to a tyrannical socialist one, with the arbitrary rule of tyrants, is a transition to modernity?
Sound more like falling back to the age of empires, slaves and serfs.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Dec 02, 2013
So RC, the transition form a liberty loving society with a rule of law, to a tyrannical socialist one, with the arbitrary rule of tyrants, is a transition to modernity?
Sound more like falling back to the age of empires, slaves and serfs.
Mate, what country do you live in, no, make that: what planet do you live on? :) Globalization, Internet information/communication, education and social imperatives drive the evolution of today's societal changes during this most recent transition from previous to next global human society where everyone affects everyone eventually, so only the most 'middle way' reasonable social laws/systems will survive into longer term. Any paranoiac fears and propaganda (like that which seems to drive/occupy you to the extent that you miss the big picture) going around now is just the same old tired fears/hatred clarion call to mindlessness and reactionism that has always stood in the way of reasonable progress of humanity. This too shall pass. :)
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2013
"Mate, what country do you live in, no, make that: what planet do you live on? :) " - RealityCheck

RyggTard lives on the Libertarian moon of the fantasy Planet known as Conservadopia.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 02, 2013
only the most 'middle way' reasonable social laws/systems will survive into longer term.

What is a 'middle' way?
The state controls half your life and property?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2013
RC:
"Where we think Australia's values and interests have been compromised, I think it is important to speak our mind," he told reporters.

"We believe in freedom of navigation -- navigation of the seas, navigation of the air -- and I think there is a significant issue here. That's why it was important to call in the Chinese ambassador to put a point of view to him."
""We have a key stake, a key interest in ensuring that there is peace and stability in... our region."
http://www.spacew...999.html

Sounds like the Aussies are being bit extreme here.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2013
only the most 'middle way' reasonable social laws/systems will survive into longer term.

What is a 'middle' way?
The state controls half your life and property?

That remark betrays how you see the world in 'black or white' and 'all or none' etc. You know perfectly well that in the context i used it in 'middle way' societal laws/systems means 'reasonable and inclusive', such that they will be what lasts in long term. Your 'polarized way', using fear/paranoia/hatred and political/mercenary interests/motivations to keep the 'mindlessness and violence way' mentality of the ancient legacy is a recipe for failure, as history shows, because such 'ways' are not sustainable; becaue education, communication information and social imperatives based on the greater good become more entrenched in more 'middle way' laws and societal evolutionary trajectory towards more enlightened and less ignorant/violent/fearful humanity globally. The transition is happening NOW. Good luck! :)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 02, 2013
"Where we think Australia's values and interests have been compromised, I think it is important to speak our mind," he told reporters.

"We believe in freedom of navigation -- navigation of the seas, navigation of the air -- and I think there is a significant issue here. That's why it was important to call in the Chinese ambassador to put a point of view to him."
""We have a key stake, a key interest in ensuring that there is peace and stability in... our region."
http://www.spacew...999.html

Sounds like the Aussies are being bit extreme here.

Again you regurgitate the 'usual suspects' dynamics of national/international politics. That dispute is a LEGACY of the same things I have been pointing out from the OLD days that are still working their way out of the global system. Transition. The 'laws' and the 'claims' etc are echos of the past. This too shall pass. Your paranoia/extremism won't help ease transition, mate. :)
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2013
The 'laws' and the 'claims' etc are echos of the past. This too shall pass.

How will it pass and what will it pass to?
Provide examples.
based on the greater good

Greater good who whom?
Provide examples.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 02, 2013
"The left-liberal mindset endemic on the college faculties and law schools where Barack Obama's political sensibilities were forged holds that morals and politics are subject to a universal reason to which the left-liberal sensibility is uniquely attuned. This conceit receives expression in a faith that the left-liberal brain trust can embody complex public policy in general rules and regulations, which can then be administered smoothly by well-educated bureaucrats and adjudicated impartially by empathetic judges.

At the same time, the left-liberal mind rebels against established authorities, hierarchies, and formalities that constrain its ability to pursue the people's good and social justice -- at least as it understands them."
http://www.realcl...824.html
This is how 'liberalism' becomes a mental disorder.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 02, 2013
]How will it pass and what will it pass to?
Provide examples.

Greater good who whom?
Provide examples.
Global Internet, communication, education dispel ignorance and reduce ability for propaganda, lies and injustices and unreasonableness to be sustained as long as in the bad old days of ignorance and control through ignorance and fear. The greater good is served by greater education and co-operation to avoid violence due to legacies of past conflicts/hatreds and plain craziness. As these bad legacies work their way through in this transition, the global internet, communication and information/science knowledge will dispel those legacies and evolve new mindset of reason not old stupidity. If you haven't seen this process you haven't been awake for the last couple decades of global internet community facilitating this evolution. Examples are under your nose in recent history. Evolving towards reason and co-operation and away from ignorance and fear. Takes time. Patience. :)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 02, 2013
"The left-liberal mindset endemic on the college faculties and law schools where Barack Obama's political sensibilities were forged holds that morals and politics are subject to a universal reason to which the left-liberal sensibility is uniquely attuned. This conceit receives expression in a faith that the left-liberal brain trust can embody complex public policy in general rules and regulations, which can then be administered smoothly by well-educated bureaucrats and adjudicated impartially by empathetic judges. At the same time, the left-liberal mind rebels against established authorities, hierarchies, and formalities that constrain its ability to pursue the people's good and social justice -- at least as it understands them." This is how 'liberalism' becomes a mental disorder.
You like your 'usual suspects', 'programming' and 'quotations'! A thinking person can walk and chew gum at the same time, and do better than his forebears/programming. Think again, for yourself. :)
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2013
RyggTard tried thinking for himself a few days ago.

He failed totally.

He couldn't form a logically coherent thought to it's conclusion.

Pathetic.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2013
Even a gorilla understands the concept of murder and the need for self defense: http://www.youtub...sPqQ0Ycc
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2013
Examples are under your nose in recent history.

Be specific.
Why is it so difficult to provide concrete examples?
BSD
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2013
[qWhat's not appreciated is that Nazism is a form of socialism.

It's not appreciated because you are wrong yet again and for as long as you keep stating it.

It is a political ally of Fascism of which is right wing.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2013
Fascism is socialism.
It's creator, Mussolini so stated.
"Long before the Nazis, too, the German and Italian socialists were using techniques of which the Nazis and Fascists later made effective use. The idea of a political party which embraces all activities of the individual from the cradle to the grave, which claims to guide his views on everything, was first put into practice by the socialists. It was not the Fascists but the socialists who began to collect children at the tenderest age into political organizations to direct their thinking. "
"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it. To many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, but in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined."
http://jim.com/hayek.htm
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2013
"In 1944 Hayek also attacked socialism from a very different angle. From his vantage point in Austria, Hayek had observed Germany very closely in the 1920s and early 1930s. After he moved to Britain, he noticed that many British socialists were advocating some of the same policies for government control of people's lives that he had seen advocated in Germany in the 1920s. He had also seen that the Nazis really were National Socialists; that is, they were nationalists and socialists. So Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom to warn his fellow British citizens of the dangers of socialism. His basic argument was that government control of our economic lives amounts to totalitarianism. "Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest," he wrote, "it is the control of the means for all our ends.""
http://www.econli...yek.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2013
"Economic control becomes political control.

Even when the state tries to steer only part of the economy in the name of the "public good," the power of the state corrupts those who wield that power. Hayek pointed out that powerful bureaucracies don't attract angels—they attract people who enjoy running the lives of others. They tend to take care of their friends before taking care of others. And they find increasing that power attractive. Crony capitalism shouldn't be confused with the real thing."
"Hayek understood that the opposite of top-down collectivism was not selfishness and egotism. A free modern society is all about cooperation. We join with others to produce the goods and services we enjoy, all without top-down direction."
http://online.wsj...18166146
BSD
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2013
Fascism is socialism.


Refer to my previous post.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2013
Fascism is socialism.


Refer to my previous post.

It is BS.
Why are socialists so upset at being reminded that Fascism is national socialism?
'Left', 'right' is relative and means nothing.
Socialism is state control of private property and Hayek dedicated "The Road to Serfdom" to socialists of all parties.

So is what BS is saying is that Fascism is 'right wing' socialism? What is 'left wing' socialism, communism?
casualjoe
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2013
As Mr Anton Wilson would say: you're putting whatever meaning you feel like onto some words and then quarreling about the words.
http://youtu.be/lO7tGOr2NU0
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2013
ou're putting whatever meaning you feel like onto some words

Not I.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2013
"Kleiner acknowledges that President Ronald Reagan officially opposed apartheid, and that some GOP leaders voted to impose sanctions. But he tries to claim that Democrats owned the anti-apartheid struggle, while conservatives backed the regime.

As in all such attacks, Kleiner plays down the association of Mandela's organization, the African National Congress, with global communism. That revisionist step is necessary to make the slander stick, as it obscures the context within which conservatives were reacting. "
http://www.breitb...partheid
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2013
"MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry suggested the term "Obamacare" and the N-word are interchangeable, claiming both were "conceived by a group of wealthy white men who needed to . . . render [a black man] inferior and unequal and diminish his accomplishments."

Read more: http://dailycalle...munFo52W

"RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)"
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
http://www.bestof...radicals
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2013
@Real:
Democrats/socialsts, the real extremists:
"The wild, incoherent rage over income inequality isn't about creating jobs and raising the bottom. It's about whacking top earners and punishing success. Every tax hike proves insufficient to feed the entitlement beast, so another is demanded. Too much is never enough.

Take the redistribution scheme known as ObamaCare. Virtually every Dem voted to impose a bureaucracy armed with IRS power and incomprehen­sible regulations on a health industry that, despite flaws, was the envy of the world."
"Progressives recognize almost no limits. They want a bigger government with more power, coming at the expense of individual liberty. Many want the Constitution scrapped or stretched beyond recognition."
http://nypost.com...ntrists/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2013
This is extreme RC:

"A California county has banned a veteran employee from criticizing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because a coworker who overheard the criticism was offended.

Read more: http://dailycalle...mw1qrjn6
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2013
This is extreme RC:

" Utah's Democrat Party Chairman Jim Dubakis ...""All he's [Mike Lee] involved in is this outlandish constitutional view. That's his constituency. That's his passion. That's his whole reason for being. It's not the people of Utah.""
"Mr. Dubakis has brought to the forefront the crux of today's political divide and dysfunction in Washington"
"However, what the know-it-alls who just scream bi-partisan miss is a key point: Bipartisanship means reaching middle ground and frankly, that just may not be possible when two sides disagree on basic fundamentals."
http://www.breitb...tlandish
Democrats/socialists support the arbitrary rule of kings/power/men and not the rule of law.

The 'social contract' of US citizens and the oath of office for all those who SERVE in the US government is to support and defend the US Constitution. NOT a king or a president or the will of the mob. To a socialist this IS extreme.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2013
Examples are under your nose in recent history.

Be specific.
Why is it so difficult to provide concrete examples?

Why play these games? What planet have you been living on since the cold war years? Examples of where extremism of a state system cannot be sustained: The Soviet Union (collapsed); The Burma (Myanmar) regime is changing to more democratic system; The South african Apartheid Regime was overthrown; East Timor was freed from extreme indonesian control; Internet communication/information has made extremism untenable to 'justify' to its people or to the global community; The TRANSITION away from Tyrannies and towards Democracies has been remarkable and is STILL ONGOING in many places/countries.

Mate, while you play 'usual suspects' using small brush strokes of everyday 'cases' which occur in all transitioning societies, you miss the big picture of GLOBAL CENTURY-LONG TRANSITION to democracies which now tend to outlast all those EXTREME 'isms' of the past. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2013
The TRANSITION away from Tyrannies and towards Democracies has been remarkable and is STILL ONGOING in many places/countries.

Why do attack the one organization in the US that is opposing 'progressive' tyranny?
BTW, democracy is a tyranny of the majority so take care how you bandy about 'Democracies'.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2013
Progressives run the school system. What do they teach? Tyranny.
Children are taught to be scared of the Government. Be careful and don't have an imagination Johny. Just today I heard of a 10year old being suspended for using a make believe bow and arrow. 7 year old kid being suspended for making what looked like a gun from a pop tart (kid denied it was a gun), another 9 year old kid suspended for throwing a make believe hand grenade in a make believe hole to defend the school against make believe monster. Teachers are defending pedophiles in school, teachers bullying students. I know of a kid suspended for talking too much to a school councilor. I know another kid 10 years old who was suspended for bringing a old rusty pocket knife to school.

Teachers are teaching fear to students. Fear the Government, fear thought crimes, fear holding different beliefs.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2013
The TRANSITION away from Tyrannies and towards Democracies has been remarkable and is STILL ONGOING in many places/countries.

Why do attack the one organization in the US that is opposing 'progressive' tyranny?
BTW, democracy is a tyranny of the majority so take care how you bandy about 'Democracies'.

Nothing is perfect. The spectrum of democracies is self-evident during transition. Why demand 'perfection now' when you know its still in transition from old world to future world psyche based on information/education instead of superstitious ignorance and fear/paranoia? I gave you examples, and you come back with semantic nitpicking. You miss the big picture and quibble over transition states already pointed out.

Any democracy wanting to survive into longer term must have common human rights and freedoms plus reasonable social constraints and responsibilities. Law and order and global education and information will lead to these balanced states eventually. Get it? :)
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2013
60 years ago, if a boy brought his gun to school, teachers would be asking how good of a shot he was.
60 years ago, if a teacher put a condom on a banana during sex ed, they would be arrested.
60 years ago, if a boy played cowboys and Indians, teachers would be telling them to keep the noise down.
60 years ago, if a teacher led a homosexual group on campus they would be charged with corruption of a minor
60 years ago, if students sang silent night, teachers would join in.
60 years ago, if a teacher wouldn't hang a students art project because it had a cross on it, they would have been fired without a second though.

Boy Progressives have destroyed a lot in the last 60 years.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2013

Teachers are teaching fear to students. Fear the Government, fear thought crimes, fear holding different beliefs.


Fear the cult leader. Fear the priest/pedophile. Fear the traffic. Fear the poisons. Fear the heights. Fear the snakes an spiders. Fear the violence mongers. Fear the crazy/lying person telling you your teachers are teaching you only fear.

You and ryggesogn2 are great at 'usual suspects' minutae, but miss the big picture and purpose behind all these things.

Such simplistic cautions/rebukes etc are child-age short-cuts to caution and social awareness etc until the child is old enough to understand what it's all about and think for themselves, and why they should err on the side of caution. Didn't your mother ever warn you about what NOT to do/believe etc etc? If not, it's a wonder you survived long enough to be making 'usual suspects' posts on the internet today. Good luck, mate! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2013
60 years ago, if a boy brought his gun to school, teachers would be asking how good of a shot he was.
60 years ago, if a teacher put a condom on a banana during sex ed, they would be arrested.
60 years ago, if a boy played cowboys and Indians, teachers would be telling them to keep the noise down.
60 years ago, if a teacher led a homosexual group on campus they would be charged with corruption of a minor
60 years ago, if students sang silent night, teachers would join in.
60 years ago, if a teacher wouldn't hang a students art project because it had a cross on it, they would have been fired without a second though.

Boy Progressives have destroyed a lot in the last 60 years.

They used to hold Klu Klux Klan meetings and lynchings too. They used to put lead in petrol. They used to believe that priests weren't pedophiles. They used to use radium in cure-all patent medicines. They used to put carcinogenic dyes and additives in food and call it 'good for you'. They used to... :)
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2013
60 years ago the KKK was supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans
Now, the news media ignores the fact and call Republicans racist for supporting equality.
60 years ago teachers wouldn't support a teacher caught being a pedophilia.
Now, teachers unions protect not only pedophilia but teacher bullying.
60 years ago scientists were allowed to research without political interference.
now, if your a climate scientist you dare not go against AGW.
60 years ago scientists focused on hard science,
now, flawed and failed social sciences are being taught as fact.
60 years ago students learned reading, writing, arithmetic and the love of science.
now students are being taught to fear government, to put on condoms, hate america
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2013
RC, why do progressives hate so much?
RC, why do progressives fear the truth so much?
RC, why do progressives ridicule those who love and build up?

RC, why do progressives hinder the teaching of children, self confidence, self respect, respecting and honoring others above oneself, humility, virtue?

Progressives in government know that if the population is self confident, has strong morals, values virtue, that the role and control of government would be very small.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2013
Nothing is perfect.

That's your excuse for the failures of socialism?
The ONE group in the USA, tea parties, that are supporting the rule of law, the Constitution, is called 'extreme' by RC and all those who support socialism.
RC praises all those who fought off socialist tyrannies while attacking those who are trying to prevent a socialist tyrannies in the USA.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2013
Fear the cult leader. Fear the priest/pedophile. Fear the traffic. Fear the poisons. Fear the heights. Fear the snakes an spiders. Fear the violence mongers. Fear the crazy/lying person telling you your teachers are teaching you only fear.


But don't fear the state?
Government is good?
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2013
Rygg, Just found this again and thought you would find it interesting.... I'm sure you must have seen it though

United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it

Any other Progressives that come to your mind that fits this profile?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2013
freethinking & ryggesogn2, why play these 'usual suspect' trivia games? You are so fixated on your own personal 'us and them' party/personality games that you keep missing the big picture I am trying to point out to you.

Extremism, ignorance and paranoia/stupidity are just that, and they don't respect the person or the party/motive.

There is enough of that in history on all 'sides' of the creed, race, individual or society of old mentality that seems to think that THEIR extremism/hatred is the 'right' kind while the OTHERS' extremism/hatred is the 'wrong' kind.

Please stop quote mining instances of the very things I caution about; and start thinking/acting towards the middle way that will survive into the longer term. That's all. The transition is messy and imperfect, precisely because stupidity, hatred and superstitious mindset is ingrained by evolutionary legacy that'll take CENTURIES to work through and out. Reasonable democracy. The only goal that will work in the long run. :)
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2013
RC, funny thing about progressives is,
1. Play the victim
2. defame anyone has a different opinion than theirs
3. attempt to humiliate those that disagree with them
4. Say the subject is settled
5. attack and utterly destroy anyone who apposes them
6. When someone stands up to them, they say "can't we all just get along."
7. When people no longer take progressives garbage progressives say no one want to work with them
8. When Progressives are shown to be liars and cheats, they say no-one should throw stones.
9. When utterly cornered, lie some more.

RC.... What stage are you in now?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2013
start thinking/acting towards the middle way

Your middle way is too extreme for me.
I prefer the rule of law. Law that protects private property and does not legalize plunder.
Reasonable democracy

What is reasonable? Reasonable to whom?
Cuba has elections and Castro always won. Is this reasonable?

United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:

Sounds like Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. BHO's bible.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2013
RC, funny thing about progressives is,
1. Play the victim
2. defame anyone has a different opinion than theirs
3. attempt to humiliate those that disagree with them
4. Say the subject is settled
5. attack and utterly destroy anyone who apposes them
6. When someone stands up to them, they say "can't we all just get along."
7. When people no longer take progressives garbage progressives say no one want to work with them
8. When Progressives are shown to be liars and cheats, they say no-one should throw stones.
9. When utterly cornered, lie some more.

RC.... What stage are you in now?
Who said the subject was settled? Not me. I point out that we are still in transition from ancient ignorance/hatred and fear/stupidity towards a new mindset of education, information, communication and co-operation because of the Internet. So why are you so slow getting that? You're using the Internet right now, but instead of realizing its positive potential, you use it to repeat same old crap! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2013
start thinking/acting towards the middle way

Your middle way is too extreme for me.
I prefer the rule of law. Law that protects private property and does not legalize plunder.
Reasonable democracy

What is reasonable? Reasonable to whom?
Cuba has elections and Castro always won. Is this reasonable?

United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:

Sounds like Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. BHO's bible.

If you can't figure out what reasonable is in a wide ranging society where education and information is available and the old hatreds and 'us and them' mentality is replaced by reasonable discourse, then you are doomed anyway. I repeat, what society/planet do you live on, mate? You sound full of agenda but empty of reason, common sense and good will. Good luck with that. :)
BSD
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2013
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/No_Australia_climbdown_on_China_criticism_999.html

Sounds like the Aussies are being bit extreme here.


Abbott is a fuckwitted conservative too. Much like the dickheads in the GOP. He's just been elected and now we have him as PM for the next 2 years and 9 months. Not that I'm counting.

As for your last Republican administration, Bush turned a healthy surplus into a massive debt passed on to the Democrats. Now the Tea Party is committed to destroying any possibility of an economic recovery.

If the South is incompatible with the other states and with your backward conservatism and religious views, why don't you secede and confederate?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2013
RC can't, or won't state what is objectively reasonable.
Is it reasonable for the few to plunder the many?
Is it reasonable for many to plunder the few?
Is it reasonable for no one to plunder anyone?
In the first two, at least one individual has his wealth plundered by the state. Both are in common practice around the world today from the USA to Australia to Norway to Zimbabwe.
What is the 'middle' way for plunder?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2013
Conservatards ryggie and freeOfThinking cannot answer straight questions. All they can do is change the subject, ask loaded questions that presume you are Satan or Hitler implicitly, and vomit links from their conservaturd search engines
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2013
koch doesn't want to address the issue of state plunder either.
Must be in favor of the state plundering his wealth.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2013
It's interesting how the socialists don't want to be pinned down to any specifics.
That is what motivated Popper to develop falsifiability.
And socialists can't make up their minds about what to call themselves. One hundred years ago they called themselves 'progressives'. When their 'progressive' agenda failed, they began to call themselves 'liberals'. When that failed, they have reverted to 'progressive' again hoping no one will pay attention.
Real science requires precise terminology and definitions so it is really surprising so many in science support socialism.
As Hayek noted, 'intellectuals' migrated to socialism since that is only way they can gain the power to force anyone to listen to them.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2013
koch doesn't want to address the issue of state plunder either.
Must be in favor of the state plundering his wealth.
Russia is not plundering my wealth. We have 13% tax
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2013
koch doesn't want to address the issue of state plunder either.
Must be in favor of the state plundering his wealth.
Russia is not plundering my wealth. We have 13% tax

Really?
"Russia's restrictive and burdensome regulatory environment discourages private-sector growth and severely hampers meaningful economic development. "
"Protection of private property rights is weak, and contracts are not always secure. "
" Other taxes include a value-added tax (VAT) and an environmental tax. The overall tax burden equals 27.2 percent of total domestic income. "
"State-owned financial institutions have further solidified their position by taking market share from domestic private banks."
http://www.herita...y/russia
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2013
koch doesn't want to address the issue of state plunder either.
Must be in favor of the state plundering his wealth.
Russia is not plundering my wealth. We have 13% tax

Really?
"Russia's restrictive and burdensome regulatory environment discourages private-sector growth and severely hampers meaningful economic development. "
"Protection of private property rights is weak, and contracts are not always secure. "
Only people without connections pay VAT on big items. The environment is damaged after CCCP and feral capitalism and requires attention. Who are you to judge personal protection in Russia? It is safer than London. Our restrictive environment helps keep us Russian and is far more free in many important ways than your bankster-controlled West with silly spokesman president who can't even talk concretely or he will be taken to the grassy knoll
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2013
Only people without connections pay VAT on big items.

So those avoiding VAT are plundering those who do.
Who are you to judge personal protection in Russia?

Who are you to judge the USA?
Our restrictive environment helps keep us Russian

The plunder of personal liberty is less important than being Russian.
No plunder in Russia? Right.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2013
ALWAYS, ALWAYS when speaking with a progressive have them define each and every word. What they say isn't what they mean.

You will be able to keep you doctor - Obama before the election.... now, depends on what you define as able, what you define as keep, and what you define as doctor.

Obama, we have 700000 people enrolled in Obamacare after 3 months...... depends on what Obama defines as enrolled, depends on what Obama defines as People.

Main Stream Media, we are covering Obama care issues..... what they mean is the Main Stream Media (PHYSORG included), covering means covering up and/or not disclosing how this law is hurting people, Obama means We need to worship Obama, care means we need to be careful to portray Obama as the Illustrious, Infallible, godlike leader, issues is code word for racists...
BSD
1 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2013
Main Stream Media, we are covering Obama care issues..... what they mean is the Main Stream Media (PHYSORG included),


This is what this discussion is about.

Racism linked with gun ownership and opposition to gun control in white Americans

I suggested the southern states leave the US, form their own confederation and live the way they want to live:

Conservative, Christian, white skinned, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the Turdoch Press.

You can peacefully live in your own angry paranoia without any interference to your myopic way of life.

The Tea Party could be your left wing party and the Ku Klux Klan could become the new conservative party.

I suppose that includes the right wing haters in this forum. Why do you want to be on here if you hate it so much?

The Confederated States of America has a nice ring to it don't you think?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2013
Only people without connections pay VAT on big items.
So those avoiding VAT are plundering those who do.
No, they are not paying VAT
Who are you to judge personal protection in Russia?
Who are you to judge the USA?
The subject in your thread hijack is Russia, you fuckwit
Our restrictive environment helps keep us Russian
The plunder of personal liberty is less important than being Russian.
No plunder in Russia? Right.
So what if there is? Most of the plundering is done by your wonderful capitalists. What are you attempting to say?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2013
opposition to gun control in white Americans

Non-white Americans oppose gun control.
Are you racist BSD?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2013
No, they are not paying VAT

So someone must be plundered to make up the loss.
So what if there is? What are you attempting to say?

That koch lies about Russia plundering Russians and supports plunder. Especially if he can get in on the action. Typical of all socialists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2013
"Half of $50 billion that Russian companies invest abroad every year is sent to offshore jurisdictions, which Putin described as the "transfer of capitals that should be working in Russia." "
http://www.telegr...rld.html
Putin should stop the plunder, if he is serious.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2013
" if anything it is gun control that has a racist legacy. In the United States, early gun laws targeted recently freed blacks, and open carry first became banned in California under Governor Ronald Reagan to disarm groups like the Black Panthers. Today, blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately subjected to humiliating stop-and-frisk searches in the name of gun control."
"or Fiscal Year 2011, 49.6% of those sentenced to federal incarceration with a primary offense of firearms violations were black, 20.6% were Hispanic, and only 27.5% were white.

This is how gun laws actually work—those caught violating them go to prison. "
"When it comes to restricting firearms, liberals have an amazing ability to ignore the hard truth of what they are advocating—putting more people in cages. "
http://blog.indep...control/
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2013
@ryggie That koch lies about Russia plundering Russians and supports plunder. Especially if he can get in on the action.
Isn't that the only requirement to be a libertarian?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2013
Free is correct. One must define each and every word when trying to communicate with socialists.
A libertarian is an anti-socialist. Someone whom Bastiat described in The Law as one who does not want the state, or anyone else, to plunder anyone.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2013
BSD, before anyone can have a reasonable discussion with you could you please define the following words you have used:
Racism
angry paranoia
peacefully
haters

Since you are a angry hate-filled progressive I just want to be clear on what you mean.
BSD
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2013
opposition to gun control in white Americans

Non-white Americans oppose gun control.
Are you racist BSD?


I just merely used the title of the article, or have you forgotten what the article is about?

Since you are a angry hate-filled progressive I just want to be clear on what you mean.


Just read it. All of the words you have trouble understanding are all in context describing the conservative Utopia called the Confederation States of America. The CSA.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2013
Like so many article on physorg, they are biased and used to promote a 'liberal' agenda.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2013
Sorry BSD you don't get a pass and you clearly show why Progressives such as yourself and Obama need to be forced to state their definition of each word they use.

Racism --- Conservatives will use the proper meaning.... what you and other progressives mean by this is anything goes against either Obama or Progressive thought even IF it has nothing to do with race

angry paranoia - conservatives hold the common meaning..... you and Progressives mean someone who calls out Progressive lies.

peacefully - Conservatives hold the common meaning.... you and Progressives mean Conservatives in Jail, silenced

haters - Conservatives hold to the common meaning .... You and Progressives this means anyone who stand up to or calls out the Progressive lies and agenda...
BSD
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2013
Like so many article on physorg, they are biased and used to promote a 'liberal' agenda.


That's easy fixed, don't read anything here and stick to your paranoid, right wing conspiracy theorist sites. The ones that you post links of in these threads.

It's 2013, but your mind is stuck in 1953. You spew out so much Cold War rhetoric you are almost a parody of what looks to us like a typical Deep South paranoiac, along with "freethinking" (there's a paradox if I ever saw one).

For the record I do have left wing views and was a member of the Australian Labor Party but they were too right wing and full of Catholics for me, so stopped my membership.

Calling me a socialist or progressive, thinking you are using it in the pejorative is utterly meaningless.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2013
Cold War rhetoric

Bastiat wrote about socialists in The Law ~1848.
Socialism, govt control over the individual's property rights, has been around a very long time.
From utopian ideals from Plato's Republic, Thomas More's Utopia, Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto to FDR and BHO, there is not much new.
Someone always seems to think they know how run the lives of others better than they do.
And 'free' notes, they can't seem to bring themselves to honestly admit this. Rather they must couch their language to lie about their true intentions, control and power.
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2013
What kind of congenital idiot would consider "progressive" to be an insult? Only a paranoid atavistic troglodyte. They should be paranoid, because the forces of time and space are conspiring against their delusional existence
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2013
It's not an insult to call anyone a Progressive. Progressives have a long line of historic leaders. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Obama, and the list goes on and on.

It is not an insult to call anyone a Progressive if that person has no issues with hate, lies, ends justify the means, stealing, forcing people to do what is (in the mind of the progressive) what is good for them.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2013
Hi ryggesogn2, freethinking.

My, my, for two guys who like 'definitions' for terms, you seem rather unwilling or unable to understand the definitions of "Reasonable" and "Middle way" and "Extreme" and "Fundamentalist" when applied to modes of thought and behavior in individual and social contexts. No wonder you can rant and rave on and on with your usual idiotic quotes and usual suspect instances while ignoring the point being made. Here it is: No matter which end of the political/mercenary spectrum acts/believes in extremes, they are BOTH extreme. Get it? Makes no difference which end of the crazy-spectrum you come from. Get it? Or is that insight into history past and present too "reasonable" and "middle way" for you? Assuming you can eventually understand what those terms mean, after (we can only hope) you have finally shed your woeful reading/polemic bias/agenda as part of your "reading/thinking". So, do you know the definition of "reading/thinking without bias" yet? :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2013
"Reasonable" and "Middle way" and "Extreme" and "Fundamentalist"

They are subjective adjectives.
Makes no difference which end of the crazy-spectrum you come from.

What is 'crazy'?
Is it 'crazy' to you to want a govt to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens?
Is it 'extreme' for citizens to want to protect their lives, the lives of their families, and their property from legal and illegal plunder?
eventually understand what those terms mean,

It's impossible when they are subjective. Why won't you be more specific?
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2013
Progressives like RC hate it when we hold their feet to the fire and demand that they define their terms. Whenever a Progressive speaks, demand that they define the terms and once you nail them down, demand that they live up to what they say.

Obama 2 years ago said if you like your doctor you can keep them. If you like your health insurance plan you can keep it. Health insurance rates will go down.

He knew he was lying, but now he changed the meaning of what he said... and the Main Stream Media is covering up for him once again.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2013
@freeFromThinking It is not an insult to call anyone a Progressive if that person has no issues with hate, lies, ends justify the means, stealing, forcing people to do what is (in the mind of the progressive) what is good for them.
Hitler always considered himself a proud catholic and displayed the crooked christian cross as the emblem of his nazi party, which liars like you call a swastika. Your religion has killed 1.5billion, which is why you are so hysterically trying to blame others for your bloodshed
@ryggie They are subjective adjectives./q]Everything is subjective. That's why we need science to separate us from the beasts and the bible bullshitters
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2013
"The word is derived from the Sanskrit "svastika" and means "good to be". In Indo-European culture it was a mark made on people or objects to give them good luck.

It has been around for thousands of years, particularly as a Hindu symbol in the holy texts, to mean luck, Brahma or samsara (rebirth). "
"Its Nazi use was linked to the belief in the Aryan cultural descent of the German people. "
http://news.bbc.c...3467.stm
"Throughout its history, the swastika represented life, sun, power, strength and good luck. "
"Hitler said the swastika symbolized the victory of the Aryan man."
{A typical 'progressive' tactic. Hijack words and symbols and twist them to mean something else. Like 'progressives' and 'liberals' who are neither.}
http://www.jewish...ika.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2013
"It's kind of amazing, really – in less than 30 years, the Nazis transformed a symbol that had been around for thousands of years from something positive to something negative."
http://www.tofugu...n-japan/
Typical of 'liberals'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2013
"Bronze age cities built by the Aryans that date back to the beginning of Western civilisation in Europe have been discovered in a remote part of Russia.

Archaeologists have identified 20 of the spiral-shaped settlements that were built some 4,000 years ago shortly after the Great Pyramid in Egypt.

It is believed that the buildings were used by the original Aryan race whose swastika symbol was later adopted by the Nazis in the 1930s.""
"The artifacts were daubed in swastikas which were used in ancient times as symbols of the sun and eternal life."

Read more: http://www.dailym...nPeybxQi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2013
@ryggie "The word is derived from the Sanskrit "svastika" and means "good to be". In Indo-European culture it was a mark made on people or objects to give them good luck.
LOL another lie from the liebetarian!

Hitler did not use the word "swastika." Hitler used the German word "hakenkreuz." The most literal translation is "hooked cross." Most readers intuitively understand "hooked cross" or "crooked cross" or even "hakenkreuz," but not "swastika." There is no evidence that Hitler knew "swastika." The word "swastika" as used in English for the symbol of the National Socialist German Workers' Party was a misleading translation of "hakenkreuz."

Note your Nazi pope carries the crooked cross in Vatican ceremonies

http://rexcurry.n...4a1.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2013
Hooked cross is a generic descriptions.
The German language has a tradition of using generic descriptions to make up new words from German words.
English has much more adaptability to borrow words from other languages.
Amazing how socialists like Koch have to twist to justify their fantasies.
The swastika originally meant something positive to the ancients that created it.
The Christian's took a symbol of Roman persecution and humiliating death, the cross, and transformed it into a symbol of hope and faith.
kochevnik
not rated yet Dec 14, 2013
@Ryggie Hooked cross is a generic descriptions.
The German language has a tradition of using generic descriptions to make up new words from German words.
Swastika was not spoken by Hitler. The German word is hakenkreuz. The hakenkreuz (hooked cross) was an ancient religious symbol in Germany, related to the un-hooked cross and to the Prussian-German Iron cross and to other crosses. The crooked cross is displayed by the nazi Pope due to catholicism being a random mess of Pagan traditions, and his fond memories of serving Hitler

Generic describes every post made by Ryggie.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2013
Hitler did not select the swastika for his socialist party until 1920.
Why did the Soviets print swastikas on their 1917 and 1918 bills? Could it be they used the swastika to mean Soviet Socialists (SS) in German and English languages?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2013
BTW, I was wonder how Koch knows Hitler never said "swastika"?
Does he have a time machine? Was he there? Does he have a recording of every word spoken by Hitler?
kochevnik
not rated yet Dec 14, 2013
@ryggie Hitler did not select the swastika for his socialist party until 1920.
Hitler selected the crooked cross while being sequestered in an abbey for three weeks, while he intensely studied writings. The symbol was the usual xtian symbol for their Sun-gawd with a plus sign centered inside a circle, except the cross was twisted. This is the same symbol adopted by Hitler and the nazis. At the church where Adolf Hitler sang as a chorister sits the Hakenzreuz in honor of Theodore Hagen (TH) at Abbey Lambach (AL), Austria, dedicated in the year 1869.

The papal salute at Abbey Lambach is identical to the nazi salute and the salute of xtian Americans in their pledge of allegiance of the time. Note the photo of nazi pope Ratner making the "Heil Hitler" salute at the same Abbey Lambach, which is a normal part of his religion

http://www.martin...a-cigar/
kochevnik
not rated yet Dec 14, 2013
@Ryggie Why did the Soviets print swastikas on their 1917 and 1918 bills? Could it be they used the swastika to mean Soviet Socialists (SS) in German and English languages?
Why would Soviets use latin characters on their currency? It would be like printing US dollar bills in Chinese Cantonese characters
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2013
"In Mein Kampf, Hitler described the Nazis' new flag: "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will be anti-Semitic." "

"the swastika symbol was also used in the passports of members of the former Soviet Red Army (see below)"
"The notes are of interest in terms of the history of the Nazi swastika and in terms of the absurd notion that the swastika has something to do with hostility to Jews."
"the Russian provisional government that issued these swastika notes was anything but anti-Semitic."
http://www.fpp.co...kas.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2013
"The symbol experienced a resurgence in the late nineteenth century, following extensive archeological work such as that of the famous archeologist Heinrich Schliemann. Schliemann discovered the hooked cross on the site of ancient Troy. He connected it with similar shapes found on pottery in Germany and speculated that it was a "significant religious symbol of our remote ancestors." "
"In the beginning of the twentieth century the swastika was widely used in Europe. It had numerous meanings, the most common being a symbol of good luck and auspiciousness. However, the work of Schliemann soon was taken up by völkisch movements, for whom the swastika was a symbol of "Aryan identity" and German nationalist pride "
http://www.ushmm....10007453
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2013
"Some scholars trace that development to archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann's 19th century discovery of swastikas in the ruins of the ancient city of Troy. Noting their similarity to swastikas he had seen at archeological sites in Germany, and knowing of the symbol's prevalence in ancient Indian civilization, Schliemann concluded that all three cultures – advanced ancient civilizations in India and near the Mediterranean Sea (such as Troy) as well as the less-impressive ancient cultures in Germany – must be closely related. Other Europeans took that to heart, too, as did the many Americans with strong ethnic ties to Europe. Soon, the symbol was not uncommon throughout the U.S., and a U.S. Army division even used it as a logo before World War II."
http://thehistory...zis.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2013
"Hitler was a choir boy who corrupted the symbols presented him to seduce a people in distress. Hitler wasn't an occult warlock, nor were his origins mysterious enough for us to deny his proximity to us. He was a forlorn and rejected artist who needed a scapegoat and subscribed to megalomania to compensate for a feeling of nothingness."
http://www.martin...a-cigar/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2013
"Though Hitler felt a particular urgency about dealing with the Jews and Communists, and the neutralizing of other political parties, he saw the Church as a pernicious opponent, a deeply-entrenched threat that must be immediately controlled and eventually uprooted in order to establish his Thousand-Year Reich.

To help eliminate Catholic influence, he turned to Alfred Rosenberg, arch-ideologue and convinced Nazi, who despised Christianity. In his book The Myth of the Twentieth Century, Rosenberg formulated a "scientific" theory of racism. For him, the supreme human value was that of race: individual races possessed their own collective soul, a mystical "power of the blood and soil." "
"Hitler gave another signal when brown shirt SA gangs broke up meetings of Christian trade unions and the Catholic Center Party. The Manchester Guardian reported one such incident on February 22, 1933. "
http://www.cathol...87227944
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2013
"You might be surprised to see the papal salute at Abbey Lambach:"
You might be surprised to see the papal salute at Abbey Lambach:

Now if you look at a different site, you will see this photo is cropped. The boy in the photo has both arms extended.
kochevnik
4 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2013
@ryggie "Though Hitler felt a particular urgency about dealing with the Jews and Communists, and the neutralizing of other political parties, he saw the Church as a pernicious opponent, a
LOL you've pasting from a catholic rag. No conflict of interest they have, hiding the 1.5billion murders committed under their religion

Of course you ignore the thousand year display of the crooked cross under the Rus tribes, and the blatantly obvious fact that Hitler proudly displayed the church's crooked cross as the emblem of his party
barakn
not rated yet Dec 14, 2013
Listen to all the racists deny, deny, deny.
Captain Stumpy
2.5 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2013
No matter which end of the political/mercenary spectrum acts/believes in extremes, they are BOTH extreme. Get it? Makes no difference which end of the crazy-spectrum you come from. Get it? Or is that insight into history past and present too "reasonable" and "middle way" for you?


RC
the problem with that is … when you have diversity, then there is the possibility for rapid advancement, however, the middle ground becomes every bit as extreme and crazy-spectrum as the extremes. This is just the folly of the human mind.

LOGIC MUST RULE THE DAY... and when people get involved, especially educated politicians with no real history of reality in the day to day of the majority of people, then stupidity reigns.
Laws like the "seatbelt" law instead of the Cell Phone use while driving law abound. Seatbelts only increase the USERS life expectancy, whereas the use of a cell phone while driving can and does affect ANYONE driving around the user!
Captain Stumpy
2.5 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2013
communication information and social imperatives based on the greater good become more entrenched in more 'middle way' laws and societal evolutionary trajectory towards more enlightened and less ignorant/violent/fearful humanity globally. The transition is happening NOW.


RC
this may be the reason that we have this issue at all, really. This is the reason that others cannot see eye-to-eye on this topic... the fact that education makes some believe in the inherent good in people, and that we are capable of rising onto some plane of existence where the criminal is non-existent. This is nothing short of fantasy. As long as there is diversity, and as long as there are people who think differently than others, there will be criminals. PERIOD.
Even for those who think they have a "solution"... what they are ultimately selling is the perception of Utopia. And that is totally subjective.
what is utopia for one is hell for another. I cannot reiterate that strongly enough!
Captain Stumpy
2 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2013
A new study has found that higher levels of racism in white Americans is associated with having a gun in the home and greater opposition to gun control policies.


this statement alone is proof that the article is not un-biased. there is NO mention of other race bias. Racism is viewed as a white-black or white-other issue, when it is nothing of the sort.
if you are going to publish an article about racism, you had better include data from ALL the races.
all this study is doing is attempting to attach a negative association to a TOOL. why not attach it to hammers or cars? both are FAR deadlier than guns, and more racists own hammers and cars than guns!
this article is about a study that was out to change the way people look at a tool. a gun is a hunk of metal that is capable of damage. if we were to negatively associate with every tool that is capable of damage, we would have never advanced past the stone knife!

and it NEVER addresses the core problem! CRIMINALS!
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2013
the ONLY reason someone would write a study like this with results that obviously are skewed is to attempt to change a societies perceptions, and to attempt to make people afraid of something.
Guns are inanimate. They are not good or evil. that is a moral attachment to the USE of the gun, NOT something inherent in the gun.
this is nothing more than an attempt to make people disassociate with guns out of fear of being called a racist. nothing more.
no real science being done.
this is no better than the extremist propaganda from the world wars. the question you should ask is WHY.

this is no better than saying there is a higher level of racism by owning a car! odds are, the correlation is high! most americans own cars. most racists drink water too... is that next? most racist wear clothes too...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2013
From an Australian site:
This is written before the part that said he supported socialism.
"Pierson has been described as a dedicated and bright student from a religious family who attends Bible study meetings, leaving those that knew him shocked."
"Thomas Conrad, who had an economics class with the gunman, described him as a very opinionated Socialist."
http://www.news.c...83250108
"The Los Angeles Times quotes friends who described Pierson as an advocate for gun rights. In its lengthy report, The Los Angeles Times does not, however, include the information about the Facebook posts wherein Pierson describes himself as Keynesian or mocks Republicans as wanting people to die. "
http://www.breitb...facebook
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2013
"For an American mainstream media always eager to exploit tragedy for political gain, yesterday's horrific shooting will not give them much to work with. The gunman's politics have little in common with the Tea Party, and the state where the shooting took place, Colorado, passed almost all of the media's gun control wish-list about six months ago.

More bad news for the media came in the gunman's weapon of choice: a shotgun, which is also Vice President Joe Biden's weapon of choice.

As we have seen time and again, the length of the media's fascination with this kind of tragedy is directly connected to how much the media are able to exploit the event for political gain. As of right now, because there is nothing to mine for political gain, it looks as though the media will have forgotten all about this shooting by Tuesday or Wednesday. "
http://www.breitb...facebook
freethinking
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2013
The media Progressive Bias is showing again.

http://www.infowa...-secret/

When the media speaks, you know they have an agenda.... if reality doesn't fit their agenda they will lie, or ignore.

Mass Shootings one example.
Physorg not reporting on millions of people losing their health care because of Obama another one.
goracle
not rated yet Dec 16, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings

Thanks for the link.
goracle
5 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2013
It's not an insult to call anyone a Progressive. Progressives have a long line of historic leaders. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Obama, and the list goes on and on.

It is not an insult to call anyone a Progressive if that person has no issues with hate, lies, ends justify the means, stealing, forcing people to do what is (in the mind of the progressive) what is good for them.

Hitler as a 'Progressive'! That says all you need to know about how free of thinking @freethinking is.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.