Oklahoma Governor Signs Open Carry Law

[royc]

How about that, I bet crime will go down in Oklahoma....

http://www.guns.com/ok-governor-signs-open-carry-law-8056.html



Roy

[Hugh B]

No doubt about it. Crime will decrease there now as it has done in every state where open or concealed carry is passed. This is directly opposite to what the gun control people claim will happen and the gun control people refuse to go with the facts.

[tunnel_rat]

I would have thought they were one of the first to have that. You gonna mess with someone packing, or someone who's not?

[Hugh B]

I would have thought they were one of the first to have that. You gonna mess with someone packing, or someone who's not?

Yup, as soon as the bad guys realize that the good guys may be carrying their own protection they get cold feet and the crime rate decreases.

When seconds count the cops are only minutes away. An armed citizen is better than a police officer minutes away.

[the dangling wrangler]

I don't care for open carry myself. Makes me feel uncomfortable. Not much element of surprise carrying that way either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx_YUO4SzcY

[Hugh B]

I don't care for open carry myself. Makes me feel uncomfortable. Not much element of surprise carrying that way either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx_YUO4SzcY

One can argue both ways regarding open carry. Concealed carry allows for the element of surprise while open carry immediately discourages the potential criminal from acting on his crime and moving on to a different victim.

I am never concerned about someone openly carrying a weapon. Bad guys don't openly carry weapons. When I have openly carried I have never had a bad experience. Just questions from inquisitive onlookers.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I agree with Hugh.. The gun control crowd will go to hyperdrive to try and find some way to spin this into being dangerous.

Truth be known: The ONLY reason a state/local govt does not recognize the 2nd amendment... is they KNOW they will loose the ability to take unfair advantage of the citizens. It is NOT about safety, it is about control. The sooner we learn that... the sooner we will vote OUT folks who would make govt more restrictive.

[Hugh B]

I agree with Hugh.. The gun control crowd will go to hyperdrive to try and find some way to spin this into being dangerous.

Truth be known: The ONLY reason a state/local govt does not recognize the 2nd amendment... is they KNOW they will loose the ability to take unfair advantage of the citizens. It is NOT about safety, it is about control. The sooner we learn that... the sooner we will vote OUT folks who would make govt more restrictive.

Yup, it is also interesting to note that the general position of police officers is that they are not concerned with those who legally carry a firearm. But the police chiefs who are under the administration of a mayor or council take the anti gun position of those to whom they report.

The facts are that crime decreases when common citizens carry openly or concealed.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Yup, it is also interesting to note that the general position of police officers is that they are not concerned with those who legally carry a firearm. But the police chiefs who are under the administration of a mayor or council take the anti gun position of those to whom they report.

The facts are that crime decreases when common citizens carry openly or concealed.

This is gonna sound really bad... however:

Generally, the 'voice' of police (not particularly what everyone with a badge believes) is more about control (police state) than it is about protecting the public's Constitutional rights.

Down here... there are a lot of 'young' cops... who think the badge gives them the right to harass folks... Video recorders hidden in your car are VERY popular.

[Hugh B]

This is gonna sound really bad... however:

Generally, the 'voice' of police (not particularly what everyone with a badge believes) is more about control (police state) than it is about protecting the public's Constitutional rights.

Down here... there are a lot of 'young' cops... who think the badge gives them the right to harass folks... Video recorders hidden in your car are VERY popular.

I understand. It is the duty of the citizens to keep a constant watch on the government. As citizens we are responsible to keep our police under control. We need police protection just as we need a just court system. But, we also need to keep them from oversteping their bounds.

The beauty of the jury is that when we serve on a jury we are not only ruling on that particular case, we are ruling on the activity of the government. Few people on a jury realize that they can rule against the fairness of the law just as well as the one being charged with the crime.

I look forward to serving on a jury as I realize that the law for which the person is being charged may not be fair or applicable in that particular case.

[the dangling wrangler]

Howdy John. Haven't talked with you for a long time now.
Sorry your dad gave up his keys. Seems like only two or so years ago, he drove most of the way back to GA. Tell 'em I said hello.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Howdy John. Haven't talked with you for a long time now.
Sorry your dad gave up his keys. Seems like only two or so years ago, he drove most of the way back to GA. Tell 'em I said hello.

Hey John,

Yeah, health is a funny issue... as we all know.

Dad was doing fine until around mid/late February... then he started going down. He is chronically short of breath now... and loosing weight slowly. The docs cannot figure out anything... they are pricking and prodding Dad until he (Dad) is sick of going.

Thankfully Dad gave up the keys without an argument... he is pretty careful and realistic about these things.

I hope things improve... If you are a praying dude, please pray for Dad to be at peace with this change in life... he is not taking it well.

[Hugh B]

I agree with Hugh.. The gun control crowd will go to hyperdrive to try and find some way to spin this into being dangerous.

Truth be known: The ONLY reason a state/local govt does not recognize the 2nd amendment... is they KNOW they will loose the ability to take unfair advantage of the citizens. It is NOT about safety, it is about control. The sooner we learn that... the sooner we will vote OUT folks who would make govt more restrictive.

Actually, I think gun control is about safety. The government wants to be safe as they take control of our daily lives, freedom and income. They want to be safe from the armed public by disarming us.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Actually, I think gun control is about safety. The government wants to be safe as they take control of our daily lives, freedom and income. They want to be safe from the armed public by disarming us.

Curious spin on the word safety... however it does fit.

Ever listen to Tom Grisham's GunTalk radio program?
www.guntalk.com
I hear it (recorded) on a local station late Sun nite... good stuff.

[Hugh B]

Curious spin on the word safety... however it does fit.

Ever listen to Tom Grisham's GunTalk radio program?
www.guntalk.com
I hear it (recorded) on a local station late Sun nite... good stuff.

Thanks, I will check that out.

[corny]

I doubt only the ignorant redneck rubes will be openly carrying. The change in Oklahomas law is meant to protect those that conceal carry when they accidentally expose their weapon.

Like someone wearing high water pants sits down and his ankle holster is exposed or someone wearing a jacket reaches into his back pocket and accidentally exposes his gun riding in a hip holster.

[Some Dude]

No doubt about it. Crime will decrease there now as it has done in every state where open or concealed carry is passed. This is directly opposite to what the gun control people claim will happen and the gun control people refuse to go with the facts.

That is because they are liberals ,,,they dont do facts.

[barbar]

That is because they are liberals ,,,they dont do facts.
I live in liberal country, we have guns available (hunting is very popular), guns are not carried around, our crime rate is less than yours, and that is a "fact".

[hearthman]

The Progressives are now attacking the facts about Kennesaw, Ga because it represents the single biggest voice for pro-gun laws. In 1982, the city of about 5,000 passed a law requiring all adults to own a firearm and take a gun safety course in response to a town in Ohio banning handguns. Since then, they have lead the country with a low crime rate while their population is now right at 30,000. No murders for over 25 years. They have 25 registered sex offenders in that city. Most cities have that many in a 4 block radius.

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html

Sure, they have some break-ins and that's what the Progressives crow about as though that's an indication of reduced crime. Their violent crime rate is lower than 78% of th country in spite of such population growth!

Look, if criminals know guns are around, they are less apt to commit crime, whether the guns are in a closet, concealed behind a waist band or in an open holster. The few nuts who in spite of this knowledge will proceed to accost someone openly carrying is telling the public they do not value human life, theirs or yours. For those lost souls, laws have no meaning and they will do what they want to do. An addict will do ANYTHING for his next fix--B&E, larcency, mugging, kidnapping, extortion, prostituting themselves bisexuallly or murder. No law is going to stop someone like that.

The fact NZ has guns available reduces their crime rate over places where guns are banned such as the UK.

I say don't go looking for trouble but when it finds you, I hope you are prepared to defend yourselves and your family because the cops cannot. They can write up the incident after it is over. Question is, who's going to be left standing?

[Some Dude]

I live in liberal country, we have guns available (hunting is very popular), guns are not carried around, our crime rate is less than yours, and that is a "fact".

You are also not industrialized and you do not have the immigration issues / race issues we face.
Plus your in New Zealand , everyone is to depresed to shoot anyone but themselves.

[barbar]

You are also not industrialized and you do not have the immigration issues / race issues we face.
Plus your in New Zealand , everyone is to depresed to shoot anyone but themselves.
Have you not hit it on the head.
Guns do not kill people, people kill people, do you not think you need to look at cause of why you feel you need to carry guns.

[corny]

What some dude is trying to say is that if there were not any blacks or latinos in the US our crime rates would drop to zero. Its the blacks and latinos that make the whites here kill their own families, become serial killers and mass murderers....rape their own kids to the point where its almost a misdemeanor now.

Blacks and latinos drive the white man to murder.......oh yes... and having to work in manufacturing jobs.

[corny]

Around here.....probably a dozen times a year there is a factory shooting where some crazed caucasian factory worker finally tires of having to work for a living and instead of getting an education and changing his future he goes to work with some guns and starts shooting up the place.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I live in liberal country, we have guns available (hunting is very popular), guns are not carried around, our crime rate is less than yours, and that is a "fact".


You are also not industrialized and you do not have the immigration issues / race issues we face.
Plus your in New Zealand , everyone is to depresed to shoot anyone but themselves.


Have you not hit it on the head.
Guns do not kill people, people kill people, do you not think you need to look at cause of why you feel you need to carry guns.

The reason us folks in the USA carry guns is self protection. Go to the NRA site, GOA (gun owners of America), or any other gun organization... and look for a section where they list stories of folks who stopped crime by using deadly force. It happens literally thousands of times a day in the USA... in a few large cities I understand a report of a store-keeper shooting and killing a would-be robber happens more than once a day.

Yes, I agree, guns do not kill folks, folks kill folks. However when someone is coming for me (regardless of whether they have an issue with me, or I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time)... it is simply a 'me or them' issue. The police will not be there to protect me... so if I want to survive, I have to protect myself. This is what we carry for, self protection.

And as Hearthman noted: Criminals are not gonna go after someone they think has a gun... they go after defenseless folks. The few that would... well they are just plumb crazy and we all know there is no reasoning with someone who is crazy. Might mention folks pumped up on drugs behave and think like someone that is plumb crazy.

Guns, in the right hands--that means trained and practiced to use them, are excellent methods of self protection.

BTW: I also have a Tazer; civilian version, from the same folks who make them for the military and LE folks. Nice little gadget, it will get you out of a mess with one perp without the legal hassles of taking a life. Personally, I would rather use the Tazer if given the choice... however if it is a life or death issue... and it appears there is no avoiding someone going to meet Jesus real soon... well it is not gonna be me.

Having made what some would call some macho comments... let me be very CLEAR on something: As a Christian, I literally pray I never have to use deadly force against anyone; I do NOT want to take someone's life. However, as noted above... it there is no other way... it is not gonna be me who goes to see Jesus first.

[the dangling wrangler]

Here's a little known fact. More people are hurt/injured with revolvers, than pistols. 7th or 8th paragraph down.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=238&issue=019

[ga-hvac-tech]

Yeah...

What amazes me is the lack of understanding of guns... resulting in laws being passed which have nothing to do with safety... other than the safety of power hungry polecats who are afraid of armed law abiding citizens not letting them have too much power.

What we need, IMO, is some investigative reporting on how business as usual is conducted in Chicago... John Stossel style... <grin>. MIght wake up a few folks to how corrupt most polecats are... so they would adopt my motto: NEVER trust a politician, none and never.

[the dangling wrangler]

Yeah...

What amazes me is the lack of understanding of guns... resulting in laws being passed which have nothing to do with safety... other than the safety of power hungry polecats who are afraid of armed law abiding citizens not letting them have too much power.

What we need, IMO, is some investigative reporting on how business as usual is conducted in Chicago... John Stossel style... <grin>. MIght wake up a few folks to how corrupt most polecats are... so they would adopt my motto: NEVER trust a politician, none and never.

Chicago has been corrupt for many decades now. And, it looks like the same for the foreseeable future too.

[Some Dude]

Have you not hit it on the head.
Guns do not kill people, people kill people, do you not think you need to look at cause of why you feel you need to carry guns.

The reason we need to carry guns, in some cases is 100 percent because of you liberals.
See, when i was a kid , if i acted a certain way in school , i got beat up.
Now, kids do whatever they want and nothing happens, liberals have removed our ability to police ourselves. They have made laws so real men cannot act without fear of lawsuits and repercussions to their familys.

[Some Dude]

What some dude is trying to say is that if there were not any blacks or latinos in the US our crime rates would drop to zero. Its the blacks and latinos that make the whites here kill their own families, become serial killers and mass murderers....rape their own kids to the point where its almost a misdemeanor now.

Blacks and latinos drive the white man to murder.......oh yes... and having to work in manufacturing jobs.

Actually i wasnt saying any of that at all.

[corny]

Actually i wasnt saying any of that at all.

Yes, You were....

Go back and read your own post my hvac talk friend......

[ga-hvac-tech]

Chicago has been corrupt for many decades now. And, it looks like the same for the foreseeable future too.

Yeah, I know... I was thinking more like over a century of corruption.

My point was to enlighten folks to the reality that NO polecat is worth trusting... regardless of what they say or what party they belong to.

In my life; after God, my trust is in the founding documents of this country. Wish more folks understood them.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Actually i wasnt saying any of that at all.


Yes, You were....

Go back and read your own post my hvac talk friend......

:couch:


Personally, I do not think SomeDude was saying what Corny thinks (or is trying to spin)... however we will see how it turns out.

[the dangling wrangler]

:couch:


Personally, I do not think SomeDude was saying what Corny thinks (or is trying to spin)... however we will see how it turns out.

Since I've been hanging in ARP, I couldn't help but notice how Corny's replies are for the most part, very vile, crude & rude. Never really brings anything to the table. I figure, if I quit giving attention, eventually he'll go away. The man is chock full of hatred.

[corny]

Lets go back and review the conversation as it took place.....

Somedude was replying to barbar our friend from New Zealand who said....

and Im quoting barbar....

"I live in liberal country, we have guns available (hunting is very popular), guns are not carried around, our crime rate is less than yours, and that is a "fact". "

Somedude even replied to barbars quote with a quote..... Im going to try and copy and paste somedudes reply to barbar.

this is post 20 by the way.

Quote: Originally Posted by barbar
I live in liberal country, we have guns available (hunting is very popular), guns are not carried around, our crime rate is less than yours, and that is a "fact".

You are also not industrialized and you do not have the immigration issues / race issues we face.
Plus your in New Zealand , everyone is to depresed to shoot anyone but themselves.

__________________
You sure are cocky for a starving pilgrim.

Now...lets analyze it.

Barber is stating that his country is liberal and guns are not carried around by the general population like they are in the USA..... I am assuming they dont have concealed or open carry laws......

Now Somedude... in replying to barbars statement says that the reasons for New Zealands lower crime rates are that....

A. You are not industrialized

B. You do not face the immigration issues we face

C. You do not face the race issues we face

and... and Im just throwing this attempt to be funny in there....

D. Everyone is too depressed to shoot anyone but themselves.


Im not trying to argue Somedudes facts.... but if you look at the reasons he gives for americas higher crime rate or higher murder rate it looks to me like he is blaming

A. People who work in factories...... which is probably true.... our manufacturing industry is full of people from all walks of life and many of them use drugs, commit various, cheat on their spouses.....and many of them go to work and kill their fellow employees for various reasons.

B. Immigration issues..... When I hear immigration issues/problems I and most every other american in this nation thinks latino, south american or mexican.

Id like to know what Somedude meant by his immigration statement if he didnt mean latinos.....

C. Race issues...... When I and nearly every other american hears race issues we think of black folks.....

Id like to know what Somedude meant when he made that statement if it wasnt referring to black folks.

In conclusion.... what I got from Somedude was this.....

You are also not industrialized (redneck white folk factory workers shooting up the place because someone hit on their old lady) and you do not have the immigration issues (Latinos ) / race (black folk) issues we face.
Plus your in New Zealand , everyone is to depresed to shoot anyone but themselves.

Id also say the suicide rate per capita is higher in the US than in New Zealand and Ive not even looked that up.

Of course when an american kills himself he usually takes his family along for the ride.

[Some Dude]

Lets go back and review the conversation as it took place.....

Somedude was replying to barbar our friend from New Zealand who said....

and Im quoting barbar....

"I live in liberal country, we have guns available (hunting is very popular), guns are not carried around, our crime rate is less than yours, and that is a "fact". "

Somedude even replied to barbars quote with a quote..... Im going to try and copy and paste somedudes reply to barbar.

this is post 20 by the way.

Quote: Originally Posted by barbar
I live in liberal country, we have guns available (hunting is very popular), guns are not carried around, our crime rate is less than yours, and that is a "fact".

You are also not industrialized and you do not have the immigration issues / race issues we face.
Plus your in New Zealand , everyone is to depresed to shoot anyone but themselves.

__________________
You sure are cocky for a starving pilgrim.

Now...lets analyze it.

Barber is stating that his country is liberal and guns are not carried around by the general population like they are in the USA..... I am assuming they dont have concealed or open carry laws......

Now Somedude... in replying to barbars statement says that the reasons for New Zealands lower crime rates are that....

A. You are not industrialized

B. You do not face the immigration issues we face

C. You do not face the race issues we face

and... and Im just throwing this attempt to be funny in there....

D. Everyone is too depressed to shoot anyone but themselves.


Im not trying to argue Somedudes facts.... but if you look at the reasons he gives for americas higher crime rate or higher murder rate it looks to me like he is blaming

A. People who work in factories...... which is probably true.... our manufacturing industry is full of people from all walks of life and many of them use drugs, commit various, cheat on their spouses.....and many of them go to work and kill their fellow employees for various reasons.

B. Immigration issues..... When I hear immigration issues/problems I and most every other american in this nation thinks latino, south american or mexican.

Id like to know what Somedude meant by his immigration statement if he didnt mean latinos.....

C. Race issues...... When I and nearly every other american hears race issues we think of black folks.....

Id like to know what Somedude meant when he made that statement if it wasnt referring to black folks.

In conclusion.... what I got from Somedude was this.....

You are also not industrialized (redneck white folk factory workers shooting up the place because someone hit on their old lady) and you do not have the immigration issues (Latinos ) / race (black folk) issues we face.
Plus your in New Zealand , everyone is to depresed to shoot anyone but themselves.

Id also say the suicide rate per capita is higher in the US than in New Zealand and Ive not even looked that up.

Of course when an american kills himself he usually takes his family along for the ride.

When you amd robo stop spooning read this together, or get someone else to help you with the big words.

Race will always be a problem, i am much,much more likely to have an issue down town than i am in my neighborhood or out in the country where i grew up.
These are not my problems, they are societys problems, why?

Because every time someone white is beaten up, robbed, shot etc, its just to bad.
Every time a minority has something happen to them is race.

This breeds people who are unaccountable for their actions, no matter what color we call them liberals.

Now the liberal elite, would have all guns taken away ,,,,,,,except the ones used to protect them.

Race is a problem, but not my personal problem , its forced upon each of us every time we walk out the door.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Here in the USA; folks are not taught to take responsibility for their choices... The method of teaching is a combination of letting folks get away with too much and selective enforcement of rules/laws. As SomeDude says: When a minority commits a crime against a white person, it is ignored... when a white person commits a crime against a minority person, it is a federal offense which becomes the hottest news story discussed daily for a few weeks.

And as SomeDude said: some of the minority folks seem to think they are not responsible to play by the same rules everyone else does.

(GA's opinion is the current occupant of the White House WANTS this confusion... because they can pass legislation in the background, which the public would not allow if they knew of it.)

Now would someone tell me how the system is supposed to work when each group gets a different set of rules?

Oh, BTW: The Constitution says everyone is under the SAME rules... so any so called 'laws' which differ from everyone gets the same deal... is not constitutional. The govt's job is to guarantee 'life, liberty (freedom from oppressive govt), and the pursuit of happiness' to EVERY citizen. (Look at the Declaration of Independence, second paragraph.) SOOO: this selective enforcement idea (can you say affirmative action, gay rights, minority rights, etc) is illegal according to the founding documents of this country.

[corny]

If we didnt have blacks and latinos in this country making us go armed we would still have to go armed because of all the crazy a** white folks out there.

Anyhow.... I am correct in my assumption of what somedude meant... even though he can deny it all he wants.

Im not saying its not true to some extent..... but blacks and latinos are not the only reasons for crime in this nation.

I fear the crazy inbred redneck backwoods hillbilly pill head or meth head more than I do a black man or latino because our area has an overbundance of crazy inbred redneck backwoods hillbilly pill heads and meth heads and not so many black or latino people.

I very rarely see a black person in my area...unless I drive thru the hood.... which I do occasionally cause its quicker for me to get home that way.

Most mexicans I see are usually working somewhere or at the store buying goods with their hard earned cash....and they seem pretty on the ball to me.

White folks..... I cant go to the grocery store or even the car wash without worrying about some white guy coming up to me bum some money for "milk and diapers"....lol

Even the 50-60 yr old bums use that excuse......

So.... take away all blacks and latinos and we are still faced with a whole bunch of crazy a** white folks.

The convo was not about equality.... it was about the reason that the USA has more crime and folks here need to go armed more than folks in New Zealand.

[barbar]

Thanks for some rounded answers.
I understand prevention, and that having/showing a gun you are less likely to be attacked.
However, does the increased number of hands guns, also increase the number of opportunities where they are used/drawn. Sort of a chicken and egg scenario.
Does having a hand gun, give you an increased sense of power. Therefore promoting a more aggressive society.
Are gun laws more about loss of your perceived power and change to your culture.

I was brought up in the most violent city in the UK (at that time) and went to that cities most violent school. I can say hand on heart that having a hand gun never crossed my mind.

So is the hand gun issue more about culture, than protection.

And for those interested checked up on hand gun laws in NZ, not allowed to be carried, and a very long process to own a hand gun, firstly you have join a gun club and be an active/participating member for some time (6months?). Then you go through an internal and external vetting procedure.

[Some Dude]

In all honesty , a person is more likely to be shot by a known associate than a minority, unles the minority is a known associate.

I wish we didnt need hand guns too, but sadly we do in some circumstances.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Thanks for some rounded answers.
I understand prevention, and that having/showing a gun you are less likely to be attacked.
However, does the increased number of hands guns, also increase the number of opportunities where they are used/drawn. Sort of a chicken and egg scenario.
Does having a hand gun, give you an increased sense of power. Therefore promoting a more aggressive society.
Are gun laws more about loss of your perceived power and change to your culture.

I was brought up in the most violent city in the UK (at that time) and went to that cities most violent school. I can say hand on heart that having a hand gun never crossed my mind.

So is the hand gun issue more about culture, than protection.

And for those interested checked up on hand gun laws in NZ, not allowed to be carried, and a very long process to own a hand gun, firstly you have join a gun club and be an active/participating member for some time (6months?). Then you go through an internal and external vetting procedure.

Just my :.02:;

Speculating about numbers does not change the odds of surviving an encounter with a criminal. And criminals do not follow handgun laws... they get their guns illegally. Even in the UK where all handgun ownership is outlawed... criminals still get handguns and use them on honest law-abiding citizens.

Is it more important to leave law abiding citizens defenseless, or is it more important to allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves? I submit if TPTB (the powers that be--in other words the law-makers) REALLY CARED about the citizens... they would choose the latter. Since they choose the former, it is clear to this GA guy the law-makers do NOT care about me... they have an alternative agenda.

All one has to do to understand one of many alternative agendas... is to read the history of Germany in the 1930's. Adolf Hitler would NEVER have gotten to supreme power if he had not first registered all the guns, and then collected them. So one could reasonally deduct that laws restricting private gun ownership were one of the causes of the European conflict of WW2.

[barbar]

Just my :.02:;

Speculating about numbers does not change the odds of surviving an encounter with a criminal. And criminals do not follow handgun laws... they get their guns illegally. Even in the UK where all handgun ownership is outlawed... criminals still get handguns and use them on honest law-abiding citizens.

Is it more important to leave law abiding citizens defenseless, or is it more important to allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves? I submit if TPTB (the powers that be--in other words the law-makers) REALLY CARED about the citizens... they would choose the latter. Since they choose the former, it is clear to this GA guy the law-makers do NOT care about me... they have an alternative agenda.

All one has to do to understand one of many alternative agendas... is to read the history of Germany in the 1930's. Adolf Hitler would NEVER have gotten to supreme power if he had not first registered all the guns, and then collected them. So one could reasonally deduct that laws restricting private gun ownership were one of the causes of the European conflict of WW2.

I do understand your point of view, but in my opinion the gun carrying solution is also part of the problem.
Crime does exist everywhere, but when do you let a few control the thought of the many.
I would vote against the introduction of hand gun carry laws, but there is a difference between NZ & UK and many other countries and the states, in that the normal acceptance of carry guns all ready exist in the states, therefore is part of the culture "good, bad or indifferent"
So for example in NZ I would be conservative for of want to introduce changes in the gun carry laws, but a liberal in the States.
Practically, I think those in the states need to carry guns, only for the reason that everybody already carries guns (legal or illegal), and that your chances of being in a gun related conflict are already much higher than those countries where gun carrying is much less limited.

The Hitler issue, I can not agree or disagree as during that period, there was many opportunities both internally and externally to Germany to stop Hitler.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I do not mean to attack anyone, however all this intellectual stuff is not addressing the simple issue of self protection.

In the USA one has a reasonable chance of being assualted by a criminal... simply because the system does not make crime dangerous enough (swift and tuff punishment) to deter criminals. BTW: It is proven that in Australia when guns were collected recently, crime went UP. The only REAL way to avoid being a victim is to have a way to protect yourself. This is what CCW is about; self protection.

Now in my thinking there is no intellectual or rational way to argue away the right to protect oneself. And no, I am not going to accept that shootings other than self defense really go up when more folks carry weapons.

The difference is a society of rugged individuals who take responsibility for themselves (a right the US Constitution protects); vs a society where folks are required to depend on the govt to protect them... which seldom results in the same quality of protection one can do for themselves.

As to the Germany thing: A society that is armed is not easy to control... a society which is not armed... well they can be herded like cattle.

If one reads the US founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Amendments)... one finds some simple truths:
*Each citizen is GUARANTEED granted certain rights 'by the creator' (reference to God, NOT the govt). The job of the govt is to guarantee those rights given by a HIGHER power than people.
When one looks at govt this way... they see if differently than all power is given or taken away by a few folks behind closed doors. Rather: Govt is a group of stewards who are entrusted (so long as they do their job respectfully of the citizens) to guarantee the rights equally. When govt starts lording over citizens, or starts lusting for power... they have stepped beyond the bounds of the founding documents of the USA. The people must kick any person with this attitude OUT Of office, and replace them with someone that understands their position of stewardship (servanthood).

Now does it make more sense why armed citizens are the BEST guarantee of freedom?

[barbar]

Not quite in order to your comments.

Australia first, here is the trends for homicide by guns over quite period. This would indicate that your statement about Australia is incorrect.


CompareRate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
ChartIn Australia, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2009: 0.1
2008: 0.09
2007: 0.12
2006: 0.14
2005: 0.19
2004: 0.218
2003: 0.27
2002: 0.23
2001: 0.24
2000: 0.30
1999: 0.26
1998: 0.30
1997: 0.43
1996: 0.57
1995: 0.37
1994: 0.43
1993: 0.36
1992: 0.55
1991: 0.49
1990: 0.46
1989: 0.48
1988: 0.74

Is it not better, to promote self protection, with good moral standards, and reduce the likelihood of increased criminal behavior.

Is it that the states has accepted high crime rates, and therefore promotes the need for gun carrying self protection.

If I were a criminal, i knew that my victims were carrying, then I would ensure that I was carrying. A snowball effect.

You mentioned being a rugged individual, the fact is many are just not rugged individuals, and therefore need societal protection.

I have to agree on punishment, many case is does not fit the crime.

But then again it is not up to the individual , to be Judge, jury and executioner.

The government is to do the bidding of the populous, if your are not part of the populous, then you loose. That unfortunately is the down side of democracy.

In modern times, in the western world, the ballet box firstly has the greatest strength, only when this right disappears does private arms come into the equation.

[Tool-Slinger]

Not quite in order to your comments.

Australia first, here is the trends for homicide by guns over quite period. This would indicate that your statement about Australia is incorrect.


CompareRate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
ChartIn Australia, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2009: 0.1
2008: 0.09
2007: 0.12
2006: 0.14
2005: 0.19
2004: 0.218
2003: 0.27
2002: 0.23
2001: 0.24
2000: 0.30
1999: 0.26
1998: 0.30
1997: 0.43
1996: 0.57
1995: 0.37
1994: 0.43
1993: 0.36
1992: 0.55
1991: 0.49
1990: 0.46
1989: 0.48
1988: 0.74

Is it not better, to promote self protection, with good moral standards, and reduce the likelihood of increased criminal behavior.

Is it that the states has accepted high crime rates, and therefore promotes the need for gun carrying self protection.

If I were a criminal, i knew that my victims were carrying, then I would ensure that I was carrying. A snowball effect.

You mentioned being a rugged individual, the fact is many are just not rugged individuals, and therefore need societal protection.

I have to agree on punishment, many case is does not fit the crime.

But then again it is not up to the individual , to be Judge, jury and executioner.

The government is to do the bidding of the populous, if your are not part of the populous, then you loose. That unfortunately is the down side of democracy.

In modern times, in the western world, the ballet box firstly has the greatest strength, only when this right disappears does private arms come into the equation.
Better comparing apples to apples, in the USA we have really bad crime in gun-restricted areas. I am safer in gun-toting havens by far.

[barbar]

Better comparing apples to apples, in the USA we have really bad crime in gun-restricted areas. I am safer in gun-toting havens by far.
So the apple and apple areas you are comparing also have the same social economic, ethnic, demographic.
Carrying guns, is just part of the USA culture, therefore is right for the USA, but as a principle, I think carrying guns, increases societal aggression and the benefits of the protection argument, are out weighed by the general increase in violent crime.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Not quite in order to your comments.

Australia first, here is the trends for homicide by guns over quite period. This would indicate that your statement about Australia is incorrect.


CompareRate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
ChartIn Australia, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2009: 0.1
2008: 0.09
2007: 0.12
2006: 0.14
2005: 0.19
2004: 0.218
2003: 0.27
2002: 0.23
2001: 0.24
2000: 0.30
1999: 0.26
1998: 0.30
1997: 0.43
1996: 0.57
1995: 0.37
1994: 0.43
1993: 0.36
1992: 0.55
1991: 0.49
1990: 0.46
1989: 0.48
1988: 0.74

Is it not better, to promote self protection, with good moral standards, and reduce the likelihood of increased criminal behavior.

Is it that the states has accepted high crime rates, and therefore promotes the need for gun carrying self protection.

If I were a criminal, i knew that my victims were carrying, then I would ensure that I was carrying. A snowball effect.

You mentioned being a rugged individual, the fact is many are just not rugged individuals, and therefore need societal protection.

I have to agree on punishment, many case is does not fit the crime.

But then again it is not up to the individual , to be Judge, jury and executioner.

The government is to do the bidding of the populous, if your are not part of the populous, then you loose. That unfortunately is the down side of democracy.

In modern times, in the western world, the ballet box firstly has the greatest strength, only when this right disappears does private arms come into the equation.

Who collected the data?

I suggest you look at data from BOTH gun supporting groups as well as gun restrictive groups. You will find the method of collecting data differs.

Remember: Data can be spun to say whatever the person collecting it wants to.

BTW: Where is Jmac... he has lots of data he can post.

[Six]

I do understand your point of view, but in my opinion the gun carrying solution is also part of the problem.
Crime does exist everywhere, but when do you let a few control the thought of the many.
I would vote against the introduction of hand gun carry laws, but there is a difference between NZ & UK and many other countries and the states, in that the normal acceptance of carry guns all ready exist in the states, therefore is part of the culture "good, bad or indifferent"
So for example in NZ I would be conservative for of want to introduce changes in the gun carry laws, but a liberal in the States.
Practically, I think those in the states need to carry guns, only for the reason that everybody already carries guns (legal or illegal), and that your chances of being in a gun related conflict are already much higher than those countries where gun carrying is much less limited.

The Hitler issue, I can not agree or disagree as during that period, there was many opportunities both internally and externally to Germany to stop Hitler.

Better a "few" law abiding citicenz with guns than " a few" criminals with guns. We have a saying in Texas.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Isnt Texas great !!

I dont understand the mindset that would allow the government to force a population to go unarmed.

[the dangling wrangler]

http://www.gunfacts.info/

[Tool-Slinger]

So the apple and apple areas you are comparing also have the same social economic, ethnic, demographic.
Carrying guns, is just part of the USA culture, therefore is right for the USA, but as a principle, I think carrying guns, increases societal aggression and the benefits of the protection argument, are out weighed by the general increase in violent crime.
Perhaps our difference of perception is rooted in the fact you are considering a 'community benefit' where as I am considering an 'individual right'. That is why our gun rights are in our 'bill of rights' as an individual right, not some community organization plan. As an individual, I am safer with my gun handy, so is my truck, so is anyone around me.

I may agree the availability of guns increase violence as does freedom of speech, but I would never trade the freedom or the rights for some wimpy false concept of safety.

[scrogdog]

Better comparing apples to apples, in the USA we have really bad crime in gun-restricted areas. I am safer in gun-toting havens by far.

I generally favor the right to own guns. But it seems like every time statistics come up, I am unable to independently verify them.

Last time this came up someone was talking about some place here in the US where gun ownership was mandated. Of course then the poster went on to talk about the wonderful crime rate as a result. The source he used was this site;

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

Yes, you'll note that I conventiently posted the page that shows that the gun-controlled state of MA ranks 50th in terms of gun deaths per 100k.

Anyway, I happened to notice that the size and population of said town was nearly identical to my home town of Stoneham, MA. So, for giggles, I compared the two.

Guess what, Stoneham either met or beat the crime statictics shown for the place that had gun ownership mandated. In every single category except one; if I remember correctly, Stoneham had one more stolen car.

As I said, I support the right to own guns. It is simply that I am unable to independently verify most of the claims that I see here UNLESS I go to a gun activist site.

[barbar]

Who collected the data?

I suggest you look at data from BOTH gun supporting groups as well as gun restrictive groups. You will find the method of collecting data differs.

Remember: Data can be spun to say whatever the person collecting it wants to.

BTW: Where is Jmac... he has lots of data he can post.

Here is the site I got the data from.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

[barbar]

http://www.gunfacts.info/

I had a quick look at this site, pure "pro gun"

Even within the first few pages manipulation of the data has been applied.
Especially around the separation of the countries within Britain for specific data, then the amalgamation of the countries for general points made.

Did not go any further, due to it being totally one side in its arguments.

[barbar]

Better a "few" law abiding citicenz with guns than " a few" criminals with guns. We have a saying in Texas.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Isnt Texas great !!

I dont understand the mindset that would allow the government to force a population to go unarmed.

Your picked the word "Few", is this not the incorrect word, should it not read "Many"

The people elect the government, so no "force" comes into it. The Mindset, is
"Do you live in fear and need to carry guns" or the alternative "do you just live"

No one is saying that, a gun ownership should be banned.
In NZ hunting is very popular, I would of thought that 50% of households, have at least one firearm. (high powered riffles), hand guns are more limited.

[barbar]

Perhaps our difference of perception is rooted in the fact you are considering a 'community benefit' where as I am considering an 'individual right'. That is why our gun rights are in our 'bill of rights' as an individual right, not some community organization plan. As an individual, I am safer with my gun handy, so is my truck, so is anyone around me.

I may agree the availability of guns increase violence as does freedom of speech, but I would never trade the freedom or the rights for some wimpy false concept of safety.

If your individual right, is at the determent of the community benefit, and the community as a majority, sees it this way, then your rights need to be restricted. Democracy in action.

If carry a gun gives you a false sense of power, then so be it, but that also applies equally to those who may use a gun against you.

Wimpy, I think you have that wrong, that word should be used for those who carry guns. It takes strength of mind, to overcome "Fear" of what might happen, the criminals have already beaten you, as you have to alter your life style whilst living in fear, all this just overcome the risk of possibility. The day that i have to carry a gun in my day to day life, is the day that I can say that my society has gone to the dogs.

[the dangling wrangler]

As most everyone knows, I'm 100% for CCW. This set of videos(4 I think) are some food for thought though. All I can say is train, train, train people. You can never have enough training.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

[barbar]

As most everyone knows, I'm 100% for CCW. This set of videos(4 I think) are some food for thought though. All I can say is train, train, train people. You can never have enough training.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

Very interesting video. thanks
As I said earlier, to own a hand gun in NZ, you have to join a gun club and train, train and train.

So maybe the compromise in the states, should be CCW as long as training is completed and remains on going.

[the dangling wrangler]

Very interesting video. thanks
As I said earlier, to own a hand gun in NZ, you have to join a gun club and train, train and train.

So maybe the compromise in the states, should be CCW as long as training is completed and remains on going.

Well, the problem is, most people don't keep training. Myself included. My training has been gone for quite some time now. Still licensed to carry, haven't carried for 2 or 3 years now that my health is declining. Plus, I really only go the grocery store, or doctors office. Probably shouldn't feel comfortable at either place, but I do. I also don't think that one guy has anywhere near 100 hours of traning.

Remember, there's at least 2 videos.

[ga-hvac-tech]

If your individual right, is at the determent of the community benefit, and the community as a majority, sees it this way, then your rights need to be restricted. Democracy in action.



First, this country was formed as a Republic, not a democracy.

Second, the US Constitution is about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS... not about community rights. The former is freedom... the latter is something between socialism and communism. This is what makes the USA different from any other country in the world... and why we are the GREATEST country in the world... we have individual rights and freedom. Folks all over the world do whatever it takes to come here... they know how important these two things are.

Now let me ask a question: Suppose the 'community' decided it was in the best interest for nobody to own their homes anymore... the state should own them and folks should just rent them indefinitely. Would you gladly agree to give your home to the state, and pay rent until the day you die?

[Six]

If your individual right, is at the determent of the community benefit, and the community as a majority, sees it this way, then your rights need to be restricted. Democracy in action.

If carry a gun gives you a false sense of power, then so be it, but that also applies equally to those who may use a gun against you.

Wimpy, I think you have that wrong, that word should be used for those who carry guns. It takes strength of mind, to overcome "Fear" of what might happen, the criminals have already beaten you, as you have to alter your life style whilst living in fear, all this just overcome the risk of possibility. The day that i have to carry a gun in my day to day life, is the day that I can say that my society has gone to the dogs.


First we are NOT a democracy. Democracys dont work in their most fundamental form. Its just mob rule.

We are a Democratically elected representitve republic. I wish critics of this country would at least educate themselves some what.

Second its not an issue of fear or protection or ego. Gun ownership has to do with freedom of the individual. Believe it or not some people have a genuine interest in hanx guns.

Being born and raised in Texas I can relate. The ignorant sterotype of other countries was perpetuated by a complicit media that we're all walking around with a chip on our shoulder waiting for any excuse to blow someones brains out.

The undeserved blanket hatred of our last president probably added to the cowboy sterotype. Whats ironic is he's an honest stand up guy as are most people from Texas and America.

Its unforunate we got landed with such a disgusting liar as our new president.

If you generalize and think carrying a weapon means you have self worth issues then you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

In a country of almost 400 million people you would think acxording to the anti gun crowd it would mass slaughter every day. not happening is it?

People are smart enough for freedom and individual rights. Its not Americas fault the rest of rhe world still exist in the 17 century where governent needs to guide them from cradle to grave.

[barbar]

First, this country was formed as a Republic, not a democracy.

Second, the US Constitution is about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS... not about community rights. The former is freedom... the latter is something between socialism and communism. This is what makes the USA different from any other country in the world... and why we are the GREATEST country in the world... we have individual rights and freedom. Folks all over the world do whatever it takes to come here... they know how important these two things are.

Now let me ask a question: Suppose the 'community' decided it was in the best interest for nobody to own their homes anymore... the state should own them and folks should just rent them indefinitely. Would you gladly agree to give your home to the state, and pay rent until the day you die?

Yes i do understand that you are a representative democracy, I used the democracy loosely only to show "freedom of choice"
With individual freedom come responsibility. This why we all have laws, what the laws are comes down who as individuals we use our freedom to to choose our representatives.

I am pleased you think that your think the States is the greatest country in the world, and that is the way it should being an American.
I am not saying the "USA is not a great country" because it is, is it the greatest all depends upon perception. I had the choice to emigrate to just about any country in the world, including the USA, As you can see I live in NZ, so I can not agree with your greatest statement.

As to your question, as long as I have the freedom to be elected and/or vote, and the will of people decided then i would abide by the law.

So I ask you a simple question, with my individual right, you are happy for me to make my living by stealing others valuables.

I am not sure what freedoms you, have that I do not.

I have the freedom to be elected
I have the freedom to Vote
I have the freedom of choice between Private or Public Healthcare
I have the freedom of choice between Private or Public Education
I have the freedom to set up and run my own business.
I have the freedom of travel (internally and externally)
I have the freedom to purchase my own home.
I have the freedom to invest.
I have the freedom of religion.
I have the freedom to donate.
I have freedom to the internet and other publications.
I have limited freedom of speech. (this limit is more to do with choice of words not subject matter)
I have limited freedom to own a firearm
I have a limited freedom to drive a car.
I have a limited freedom, to drink, smoke and gamble.
The community has the freedom to be a republic or remain part of the commonwealth.
What freedoms am I missing?

[Tool-Slinger]

First we are NOT a democracy. Democracys dont work in their most fundamental form. Its just mob rule.

We are a Democratically elected representitve republic. I wish critics of this country would at least educate themselves some what.

Second its not an issue of fear or protection or ego. Gun ownership has to do with freedom of the individual. Believe it or not some people have a genuine interest in hanx guns.

Being born and raised in Texas I can relate. The ignorant sterotype of other countries was perpetuated by a complicit media that we're all walking around with a chip on our shoulder waiting for any excuse to blow someones brains out.

The undeserved blanket hatred of our last president probably added to the cowboy sterotype. Whats ironic is he's an honest stand up guy as are most people from Texas and America.

Its unforunate we got landed with such a disgusting liar as our new president.

If you generalize and think carrying a weapon means you have self worth issues then you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

In a country of almost 400 million people you would think acxording to the anti gun crowd it would mass slaughter every day. not happening is it?

People are smart enough for freedom and individual rights. Its not Americas fault the rest of rhe world still exist in the 17 century where governent needs to guide them from cradle to grave.
Great post.

I would like to add that having a gun is in no way a 'false' sense of power. It is in fact an incredible power.

From a personal perspective it is a force for freedom, so that I am more secure in my person, home, and property. My home is in a remote area far from the road, I honestly would be afraid to live there without a gun 'just in case..'. I am now at a motel with gun within reach mainly because of concern my truck/tools is parked outside my door and I do worry about it getting broken in to. I don't actually carry a gun around on my person, I keep it locked up in my crossover tool-box on the truck when out and about.

Basically, I am not 'packing heat' and looking for a shoot-out or something. Having a gun does make me feel safer, but it is in no way a false sense of security. It does factually give me a great better chance at being able to defend my property or self, in the event of tragic circumstances.

[barbar]

First we are NOT a democracy. Democracys dont work in their most fundamental form. Its just mob rule.

We are a Democratically elected representitve republic. I wish critics of this country would at least educate themselves some what.

play on words

Second its not an issue of fear or protection or ego. Gun ownership has to do with freedom of the individual. Believe it or not some people have a genuine interest in hanx guns.

No problem join a gun club

Being born and raised in Texas I can relate. The ignorant sterotype of other countries was perpetuated by a complicit media that we're all walking around with a chip on our shoulder waiting for any excuse to blow someones brains out.

As stated by some on this site,

The undeserved blanket hatred of our last president probably added to the cowboy sterotype. Whats ironic is he's an honest stand up guy as are most people from Texas and America.

Who hates your last president

Its unforunate we got landed with such a disgusting liar as our new president.

Well you put him there

If you generalize and think carrying a weapon means you have self worth issues then you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

If you think you need to carry one, then of course it must influence your self worth

In a country of almost 400 million people you would think acxording to the anti gun crowd it would mass slaughter every day. not happening is it?

No one said it was, but would you not prefer the murder rate be lowered

People are smart enough for freedom and individual rights. Its not Americas fault the rest of rhe world still exist in the 17 century where governent needs to guide them from cradle to grave.

All people are not smart enough for freedom and individual rights, society has a responsibility for those who are NOT smart or unable. In the 17th century, governments did not guide its people from cradle to grave, History may well show America was a major evolutionary influence on politics, but times change. You should thank New Zealand for being the first country to allow Women to vote or maybe not:grin2:

[Tool-Slinger]

barbar:

All people are not smart enough for freedom and individual rights

Just curious, how do you identify these people?

[barbar]

Great post.

I would like to add that having a gun is in no way a 'false' sense of power. It is in fact an incredible power.

From a personal perspective it is a force for freedom, so that I am more secure in my person, home, and property. My home is in a remote area far from the road, I honestly would be afraid to live there without a gun 'just in case..'. I am now at a motel with gun within reach mainly because of concern my truck/tools is parked outside my door and I do worry about it getting broken in to. I don't actually carry a gun around on my person, I keep it locked up in my crossover tool-box on the truck when out and about.

Basically, I am not 'packing heat' and looking for a shoot-out or something. Having a gun does make me feel safer, but it is in no way a false sense of security. It does factually give me a great better chance at being able to defend my property or self, in the event of tragic circumstances.

So having a gun as part of your everyday life, does change your perception?.

My home sounds very similar to yours, I honestly have no fear, and I have no guns. I do have some dogs, they would lick any crims to death.

I can imagine having gun would give you a greater chance of survival, if an opportunity rose where it was required. But if by having a gun increase the chance of such an opportunity happening, then which is best prevention or cure. (Without looking into root causes of crime) In my mind it does come down which is the strongest argument, the prevention (more restrictive gun laws) or cure (less restrictive gun laws)

[barbar]

barbar:

All people are not smart enough for freedom and individual rights

Just curious, how do you identify these people?

Good question, and not one have thought about specifically.

But here goes. (to be taken as whole)

Anyone who has made a mistake (not quite the word i was looking for), that has had a negative influence on any other.

Please do not take my words out of context, i am all for individual rights but these rights come with responsibility to a society (unless you are hermit then it does not matter)

[Tool-Slinger]

So having a gun as part of your everyday life, does change your perception?.

My home sounds very similar to yours, I honestly have no fear, and I have no guns. I do have some dogs, they would lick any crims to death.

I can imagine having gun would give you a greater chance of survival, if an opportunity rose where it was required. But if by having a gun increase the chance of such an opportunity happening, then which is best prevention or cure. (Without looking into root causes of crime) In my mind it does come down which is the strongest argument, the prevention (more restrictive gun laws) or cure (less restrictive gun laws)
My thinking is that I am much safer with legal guns. Criminals here are not supposed to own guns to begin with, for whatever value that has. But I have a chance against 2 or 3 bad guys, even if they are armed. Without a gun I figure I am pretty much toast. Side effect: Anyone here living in a place like that is pretty much presumed to be armed, so it works as a large deterrent for 'otherwise would be' criminals.

A more likely example would be a property theft either at home or motel. In that case it is unlikely the criminal would be armed. The reason is because the state laws compliment the gun laws:
Theft= single digit prison term
Theft with gun= double digit prison term.
Something along that guideline, I am not very familiar with the exact sentencing details.

Now if the bad guy has a gun and is willing to use it:
Murder while in process of a felony= Death Sentence in Texas....

Now none of this deters the REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY bad guys, nothing seems to stop them. Texas has produced some [I]really horrific criminals.

I think the affect is on the usual criminal. It is mostly a deterrent to not do the crime in the first place. Secondarily prevents escalation [or layered?] crime. To explain my second point:

Say a guy is breaking into my truck and I go out to see what all the noise is,... he is more likely to drop his crowbar and run away because I have [or could have] a gun. Otherwise he might be tempted to just smack me over the head.

Another thing would be repeated robberies, return trips. Legal gun ownership provides the criminal with insecurity that the victim may be alert and 'packing' next time.



When all of this plays out for real, the results are often gruesome. But the deterrent factor is maybe a hundred fold more important than the situation with a single incident.

[Tool-Slinger]

Good question, and not one have thought about specifically.

But here goes. (to be taken as whole)

Anyone who has made a mistake (not quite the word i was looking for), that has had a negative influence on any other.

Please do not take my words out of context, i am all for individual rights but these rights come with responsibility to a society (unless you are hermit then it does not matter)
In the USA, felons cannot legally own guns.

Individual states may have stricter restrictions on ownership. Concealed-carry license is typically very strict.

As a USA issue, if we outlawed guns then illegal guns here would be a huge problem. Drugs are smuggled in to our criminals so guns would be just as easy. That is a USA specific problem.

[barbar]

The idea of increased prison time for crims who carry guns is a great idea.
I am not against gun ownership, I am really making comments based upon, what some write on here, (not media detail), I see this industry as people of reasonable intelligence, so it would be fair for me to judge what I read as a good sample, and of course I have to compare against my experience form the UK & NZ, and limited experiences in Europe, Middle East, Asia and Australia.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Yes i do understand that you are a representative democracy, I used the democracy loosely only to show "freedom of choice"
With individual freedom come responsibility. This why we all have laws, what the laws are comes down who as individuals we use our freedom to to choose our representatives.

I am pleased you think that your think the States is the greatest country in the world, and that is the way it should being an American.
I am not saying the "USA is not a great country" because it is, is it the greatest all depends upon perception. I had the choice to emigrate to just about any country in the world, including the USA, As you can see I live in NZ, so I can not agree with your greatest statement.

As to your question, as long as I have the freedom to be elected and/or vote, and the will of people decided then i would abide by the law.

So I ask you a simple question, with my individual right, you are happy for me to make my living by stealing others valuables.

I am not sure what freedoms you, have that I do not.

I have the freedom to be elected
I have the freedom to Vote
I have the freedom of choice between Private or Public Healthcare
I have the freedom of choice between Private or Public Education
I have the freedom to set up and run my own business.
I have the freedom of travel (internally and externally)
I have the freedom to purchase my own home.
I have the freedom to invest.
I have the freedom of religion.
I have the freedom to donate.
I have freedom to the internet and other publications.
I have limited freedom of speech. (this limit is more to do with choice of words not subject matter)
I have limited freedom to own a firearm
I have a limited freedom to drive a car.
I have a limited freedom, to drink, smoke and gamble.
The community has the freedom to be a republic or remain part of the commonwealth.
What freedoms am I missing?

I notice you have not answered my question about the govt taking houses.

Yes, you have lots of freedoms noted above... kinda. The people living in Russia or China would say they have most of those freedoms... yet we KNOW that is not so.

My friend, you do not understand what freedom really is... perhaps next time someone comes to the internet to discuss something... they should be informed of what they discuss.

However; I will give you the benefit of the doubt: Govts around the world do NOT want folks to understand true freedom... if the citizens did... the govts would loose a lot of their power.

[barbar]

I notice you have not answered my question about the govt taking houses.

Yes, you have lots of freedoms noted above... kinda. The people living in Russia or China would say they have most of those freedoms... yet we KNOW that is not so.

My friend, you do not understand what freedom really is... perhaps next time someone comes to the internet to discuss something... they should be informed of what they discuss.

However; I will give you the benefit of the doubt: Govts around the world do NOT want folks to understand true freedom... if the citizens did... the govts would loose a lot of their power.

Hi Sorry for not making clear to your question. This was my answer

As to your question, as long as I have the freedom to be elected and/or vote, and the will of people decided then i would abide by the law.

I would be very unhappy with that situation.

But for this to happen, the populous would have to bring such a government into power. In NZ case, I could not see this happening. At this stage I would look at going into politics! In NZ we are a proportional representative system, so we have a wider choice of candidates & parties. And we do hold them responsible for their actions. ( I am not saying it is perfect, but what is when mankind is involved)

I fully understand freedom, but i fully accept that my freedom comes with responsibility, but not just to my self.

A government is to do the bidding for the people, we give our trust to our chosen representatives, how much power they have is solely dependent upon the voters. That is our freedom. Regardless of which power base is in office, you are never going to please 100% of the population a 100% of the time.

It would seem the the american people have relinquished their true freedom, and have just accept the corrupt political system that you present have. Again reading comment on this site the corruption is equally proportional, to the left and right. Why to you accept this corruption and the corruption is stealing your true freedom. Or just like guns, is the corruption just part of the acceptable culture?

Ok a question which is more topical and one that could easily be achieved. (unlike your housing question or my stealing question)

Do you think that all drugs should be legalized? (with limits similar to booze)
Individual freedom, must allow for full legalization, in use and supply?

[barbar]

What freedom do the people want and can not have or i should say can not change by means of the ballet box? What freedoms I am missing?

[ControlsInMT]

Good question, and not one have thought about specifically.

But here goes. (to be taken as whole)

Anyone who has made a mistake (not quite the word i was looking for), that has had a negative influence on any other.

Please do not take my words out of context, i am all for individual rights but these rights come with responsibility to a society (unless you are hermit then it does not matter)

Hmmmm....okay, so is there a degree of negative influence? You have upset a few on here with your comments about the USA and guns as others have upset you....

So does that mean all of you society needs to take care of and you can't vote? :whistle:

[the dangling wrangler]

Just another day at work in the USA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK7hBG4xQhQ

[barbar]

Hmmmm....okay, so is there a degree of negative influence? You have upset a few on here with your comments about the USA and guns as others have upset you....

So does that mean all of you society needs to take care of and you can't vote? :whistle:

I believe I am having an intelligent conversation with some (and I thank them), while offering alternative opinions. If not agreeing on different aspects on life is being upset, then so be it.

Or would rather have it; if no one agrees with your point of view, they just crawl up and die in the corner.

Can not make sense of your last comment.

[barbar]

Just another day at work in the USA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK7hBG4xQhQ

And after your days work come down to New Zealand for a beer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCHe-0w9KX8

[ga-hvac-tech]

And after your days work come down to New Zealand for a beer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCHe-0w9KX8

Not sure about all the folks at ARP... however I lived that in what is called 'honkey-tonks' (country and western bars) back in the 1970's to '80's... in Texas. And you are calling us not civilized... <grin>

Now there is a HUGE difference between teaching someone respect... and shooting someone just 'cause you feel like it. The difference is maturity... something lacking in many a society around the world these days.

That guy that set the other one straight... he kinda looks like one of the players of the 'All Blacks'... Rugby team. I watched them play on a cable channel last year... you guys grow some really GOOD Rugby players.

Back on the subject of freedom: What us USA folks cherish is freedom FROM oppressive government. I read you post about 'voting out' the ones who do wrong... however what if the wrong is acceptable by a majority??? Is it then right? Those of us who support the intended meaning of the US Constitution think not. We believe govt is a necessary evil, and to be kept under careful scrutiny... for the same reason you mentioned... it is full of people.

Democracy, as noted in a previous post, is in reality mob rule. The responsibility you mention, IMO would be to limit the voting franchise to folks who demonstrate enough maturity to use it responsibly... rather than simply vote their wallet. If you study our history, you will see at first only land-owners were allowed to vote. The reasoning was to allow only mature and responsible folks to make the rules. Then more and more folks got to vote... in the name of fairness and democracy... and look where it got us... Into a society where anyone who is a gifted speaker can lead folks down any bunny trail they want. Really smart folks voting now-a-days.. NOT!

Yes, the USA has drifted to a somewhat shallow 2 party system where each party is not much different... Care to explain how we could get out of that?

[the dangling wrangler]

Looks like our Norther neighbors just lost one of their "freedoms".
This is just loco. But true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

[ga-hvac-tech]

Looks like our Norther neighbors just lost one of their "freedoms".
This is just loco. But true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

Oh, oh, oh... but it is for the public good! And it will lower insurance costs! And after all; folks need govt to take care of them... NOT!

This is a classic example of what loosing freedom is about; when there is a problem... folks think govt is the solution. The REAL solution is leaving folks to learn to swim when they jump in the water... or suffer the consequences.

As to 'well it costs others'... well it really does NOT unless the govt gets involved with their socialism.

[barbar]

Not sure about all the folks at ARP... however I lived that in what is called 'honkey-tonks' (country and western bars) back in the 1970's to '80's... in Texas. And you are calling us not civilized... <grin>

Now there is a HUGE difference between teaching someone respect... and shooting someone just 'cause you feel like it. The difference is maturity... something lacking in many a society around the world these days.

That guy that set the other one straight... he kinda looks like one of the players of the 'All Blacks'... Rugby team. I watched them play on a cable channel last year... you guys grow some really GOOD Rugby players.

Back on the subject of freedom: What us USA folks cherish is freedom FROM oppressive government. I read you post about 'voting out' the ones who do wrong... however what if the wrong is acceptable by a majority??? Is it then right? Those of us who support the intended meaning of the US Constitution think not. We believe govt is a necessary evil, and to be kept under careful scrutiny... for the same reason you mentioned... it is full of people.

Democracy, as noted in a previous post, is in reality mob rule. The responsibility you mention, IMO would be to limit the voting franchise to folks who demonstrate enough maturity to use it responsibly... rather than simply vote their wallet. If you study our history, you will see at first only land-owners were allowed to vote. The reasoning was to allow only mature and responsible folks to make the rules. Then more and more folks got to vote... in the name of fairness and democracy... and look where it got us... Into a society where anyone who is a gifted speaker can lead folks down any bunny trail they want. Really smart folks voting now-a-days.. NOT!

Yes, the USA has drifted to a somewhat shallow 2 party system where each party is not much different... Care to explain how we could get out of that?

The Movie is "once were warriors" about 20 years old, quite a good movie to watch. Jack the Mus, is sort of the good guy/bad guy.

Back in the early 80s the bars in my home city in the UK were like that every Friday and Saturaday night. Had to do my fair share of "biffo"

Rugby is the national sport, at some time just before professionalism, Rugby was like a religion and a force on the share market. They lost the share market went down. We do get many our rugby players form the wider pacific region. Fiji, Tonga, Samoa.
Rugby in the UK was normally a gentlemens game, the The All Blacks, kicked that trend. (It it open to all classes people)

Maybe thing are easier in NZ only because our population is small, so our direct contact with our representatives happens on a more regular basis (and they do get hounded, not a job i would want)

The idea that most can vote (not vote if you are prison), sort comes from that we are "supposed" to be educated.

Politics is openly discussed, but not the hate of the left or right (of course we have a bit of that) The Prime Minister, is not quite the figure head your president is. Any pros or cons are normally directed at the parties, no the person.

We have limits on how politicians can promote themselves. How much money they can spend, how much TV or radio time.

So the parties have to promote their agendas the old fashion way. "Door Knocking" So there is quite a lot if direct involvement, between the different candidates and the voters.

Approx 15 years ago NZ moved to proportional representation, compared to the old first past the post. (we have just had a referendum on if this still the preferred method, other options were given) This does give some tactical freedom (you have 2 votes, one for a person, and one for a party) most of the time it is one in same.

So in the question of home ownership, if a government was your choice, but this issue alone was not to your liking (as it would be for many), you could set up an independent party solely to block this arrangement, only 5% of the population need to vote for this party, to get a member into parliament. Comprises are made, and extreme changes are not made. Not perfect but does "seem" to work.
We are moving slightly to the right, but this is giving a small but growing under class.

I would love to give an answer to your last question, but my knowledge of your political system is limited. But if i were to give a starting point, and taking the more intelligent comments made on the many threads on this site.
Is to get rid of the endemic corruption that seems to occur within your political system.

[ga-hvac-tech]

The Movie is "once were warriors" about 20 years old, quite a good movie to watch. Jack the Mus, is sort of the good guy/bad guy.

Back in the early 80s the bars in my home city in the UK were like that every Friday and Saturaday night. Had to do my fair share of "biffo"

Rugby is the national sport, at some time just before professionalism, Rugby was like a religion and a force on the share market. They lost the share market went down. We do get many our rugby players form the wider pacific region. Fiji, Tonga, Samoa.
Rugby in the UK was normally a gentlemens game, the The All Blacks, kicked that trend. (It it open to all classes people)

Maybe thing are easier in NZ only because our population is small, so our direct contact with our representatives happens on a more regular basis (and they do get hounded, not a job i would want)

The idea that most can vote (not vote if you are prison), sort comes from that we are "supposed" to be educated.

Politics is openly discussed, but not the hate of the left or right (of course we have a bit of that) The Prime Minister, is not quite the figure head your president is. Any pros or cons are normally directed at the parties, no the person.

We have limits on how politicians can promote themselves. How much money they can spend, how much TV or radio time.

So the parties have to promote their agendas the old fashion way. "Door Knocking" So there is quite a lot if direct involvement, between the different candidates and the voters.

Approx 15 years ago NZ moved to proportional representation, compared to the old first past the post. (we have just had a referendum on if this still the preferred method, other options were given) This does give some tactical freedom (you have 2 votes, one for a person, and one for a party) most of the time it is one in same.

So in the question of home ownership, if a government was your choice, but this issue alone was not to your liking (as it would be for many), you could set up an independent party solely to block this arrangement, only 5% of the population need to vote for this party, to get a member into parliament. Comprises are made, and extreme changes are not made. Not perfect but does "seem" to work.
We are moving slightly to the right, but this is giving a small but growing under class.

I would love to give an answer to your last question, but my knowledge of your political system is limited. But if i were to give a starting point, and taking the more intelligent comments made on the many threads on this site.
Is to get rid of the endemic corruption that seems to occur within your political system.

OK, I agree with this... so how does a society (regardless of what country it is in) get rid of political corruption?

[barbar]

OK, I agree with this... so how does a society (regardless of what country it is in) get rid of political corruption?

As with any management structure, direction should come from the top down, but in the political case, corruption seems to have already taken over, so apart from lip service, reliance of top down direction does not seem to work.

If I look on this forum, there does seem to show a lot of personal responsibility and involvement in issues only when one has direct influence on the out come.
(cash jobs, stealing, incorrect practices and so on)

So using your personal responsibility, should look at stopping corruption at your very local political level. (major, sheriff for example), As individuals your voice is more likely to be heard at this local level.

Is it the mind set of the people, that once in the political game, that corruption is just part of the game, and you as the people just become empathetic (I hope that is the right choice of word "accept') to corruption only because is common and the norm.

[ga-hvac-tech]

As with any management structure, direction should come from the top down, but in the political case, corruption seems to have already taken over, so apart from lip service, reliance of top down direction does not seem to work.

If I look on this forum, there does seem to show a lot of personal responsibility and involvement in issues only when one has direct influence on the out come.
(cash jobs, stealing, incorrect practices and so on)

So using your personal responsibility, should look at stopping corruption at your very local political level. (major, sheriff for example), As individuals your voice is more likely to be heard at this local level.

Is it the mind set of the people, that once in the political game, that corruption is just part of the game, and you as the people just become empathetic (I hope that is the right choice of word "accept') to corruption only because is common and the norm.

The problem is (and this is what is wrong with democracy): When too many folks get on the public dole (any form or program where one gets something for nothing from the govt)... they revert to voting their wallet rather than using any form of common sense or sense of responsibility. This is the reason voting should be limited... because not all folks are mature nor responsible enough to put what is good for everyone first... and there are ample folks who are not responsible enough running for office for only one reason: to buy votes with other folks tax money... to build a career in public office rather than make an honest living.
The founding fathers tried to design a country where corruption would not be the norm... because the voters would not tolerate it. Guess the voters changed.

There have been threads here at ARP where folks truly believe they have a RIGHT to vote for whomever gives them the most... with literally NO regard for what damage it does to the system... or who gets ripped off so these folks can get their freebees.

Now tell me this messy problem which happens in a democracy is anything other than destructive to the society as a whole.

BTW: One of our founding fathers (the folks who wrote the documents of the USA) said: All you have to do to loose your freedom, is nothing (what he was saying is; freedom requires eternal vigilance).

[barbar]

The problem is (and this is what is wrong with democracy): When too many folks get on the public dole (any form or program where one gets something for nothing from the govt)... they revert to voting their wallet rather than using any form of common sense or sense of responsibility. This is the reason voting should be limited... because not all folks are mature nor responsible enough to put what is good for everyone first... and there are ample folks who are not responsible enough running for office for only one reason: to buy votes with other folks tax money... to build a career in public office rather than make an honest living.
The founding fathers tried to design a country where corruption would not be the norm... because the voters would not tolerate it. Guess the voters changed.

There have been threads here at ARP where folks truly believe they have a RIGHT to vote for whomever gives them the most... with literally NO regard for what damage it does to the system... or who gets ripped off so these folks can get their freebees.

Now tell me this messy problem which happens in a democracy is anything other than destructive to the society as a whole.

BTW: One of our founding fathers (the folks who wrote the documents of the USA) said: All you have to do to loose your freedom, is nothing (what he was saying is; freedom requires eternal vigilance).

I have to agree with your statements, but how do measure maturity and there fore who can and can not vote.

Do I have to have the same Ideology as your self to be mature to vote.

As you can see I am a firm believer in personal and social responsibility (they go hand in hand in my opinion) so i suppose this makes me a socialist (not to be confused with communism). I am independently wealthy (self made), enough to cover what I need. a land owner, business owner. (in the past a large tax payer) I have some level of qualifications ( physical science and trade based) Would you consider me mature enough to vote, even with my different ideology?

[barbar]

Just a quicky, at what age do you start to vote in the USA?

[hearthman]

OK, I agree with this... so how does a society (regardless of what country it is in) get rid of political corruption?

You lead them all onto an ice flow holding the supposedly last remaining polar bear then push it off into the Arctic Ocean....:grin2:

[barbar]

OK, I agree with this... so how does a society (regardless of what country it is in) get rid of political corruption?

You lead them all onto an ice flow holding the supposedly last remaining polar bear then push it off into the Arctic Ocean....:grin2:

Na, think about the environmental damage, slime as far as the eye can see.

I prefer for them to have some use.

At all schools
Set them in concrete, with only their back sides showing, the kids can park the bikes without them falling over, whilst learning the consequences of being corrupt. "learn to recycle young man"

[ga-hvac-tech]

I have to agree with your statements, but how do measure maturity and there fore who can and can not vote.

Do I have to have the same Ideology as your self to be mature to vote.

As you can see I am a firm believer in personal and social responsibility (they go hand in hand in my opinion) so i suppose this makes me a socialist (not to be confused with communism). I am independently wealthy (self made), enough to cover what I need. a land owner, business owner. (in the past a large tax payer) I have some level of qualifications ( physical science and trade based) Would you consider me mature enough to vote, even with my different ideology?


Just a quicky, at what age do you start to vote in the USA?

I believe 18 is the voting age... and IMO that is WAAAY too young.

The founding fathers of the country restricted voting to 'land owners'... I believe the intent was to only allow folks with a stake in the healthy economy to make the rules. The founding fathers had just fought a war to get away from a corrupt and repressive govt ruling them from the other side of an ocean... they might have been a bit on the extreme of trying to avoid that again... However our country seems to have swung to the same extreme as what we fought a revolutionary war to get away from... IMO an example of why human nature is the ultimate problem.

According to the founding documents of the USA, you would qualify. The idea is not to restrict the vote... rather to make it an 'earned privilege'. This, in theory, would give an incentive to WORK towards and EARN the right... rather than consider it a toy to use for selfish gain.

The other thing the founding fathers intended was: A person, AFTER they had reached a similar status as yours, would run for public office and SERVE the country (without any thoughts of a career in public office), and then retire to go back to run their own life (with no public retirement program). A 'giving back to the country that allowed me to become prosperous' attitude if you will.
Now-a-days, federally elected congress-critters (house of reps and senate) get lifetime full salary for retirement, their own retirement system, and their own medical program... Kinda like they are elites... which IMO as well as the founding documents writings; there should not be any elites in govt.

[barbar]

I believe 18 is the voting age... and IMO that is WAAAY too young.

The founding fathers of the country restricted voting to 'land owners'... I believe the intent was to only allow folks with a stake in the healthy economy to make the rules. The founding fathers had just fought a war to get away from a corrupt and repressive govt ruling them from the other side of an ocean... they might have been a bit on the extreme of trying to avoid that again... However our country seems to have swung to the same extreme as what we fought a revolutionary war to get away from... IMO an example of why human nature is the ultimate problem.

I do not agree with your above statement, as this would just lead to a feudal system and where rights are transferred via blood lines, so all would not be born equal. It may have been a practical solution at the time, as internal expansion was occurring with a large influx multi-national immigrants.

I have been watching a bit history on the USA, I almost got the impression, the war of independence, was almost an accident, as self determination was already under way. yet the Civil war was more a major factor on who America was to become (But i could be talking out of my back side on this issue)

According to the founding documents of the USA, you would qualify. The idea is not to restrict the vote... rather to make it an 'earned privilege'. This, in theory, would give an incentive to WORK towards and EARN the right... rather than consider it a toy to use for selfish gain.

Could it be that being a law abiding and tax paying citizen means that you have earned the right vote.

The other thing the founding fathers intended was: A person, AFTER they had reached a similar status as yours, would run for public office and SERVE the country (without any thoughts of a career in public office), and then retire to go back to run their own life (with no public retirement program). A 'giving back to the country that allowed me to become prosperous' attitude if you will.
Now-a-days, federally elected congress-critters (house of reps and senate) get lifetime full salary for retirement, their own retirement system, and their own medical program... Kinda like they are elites... which IMO as well as the founding documents writings; there should not be any elites in govt.

I can agree on sentiment, but practically there is need for dare i say Professional politicians (an necessary evil), as with any job, life times costs do need to be covered.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I can agree on sentiment, but practically there is need for dare i say Professional politicians (an necessary evil), as with any job, life times costs do need to be covered.

The goal is to keep politicians under control... which is NOT happening in the USA.

The goal the founding fathers had in mind was a totally FREE system where folks could work harder and gain more... and the lazy person paid a price for their lack of taking responsibility for their life. One might want to remember the USA was basically formed by folks from a few (mostly British) countries in Europe, those folks were tired of oppressive government. Now-a-days, we think government is our nanny and is supposed to take care of us... we do not see the dangers of that attitude.
One of the founding fathers said: Those that do not value freedom enough to fight and die for it, do not deserve it. Now I know it is politically 'cool' to think we are smarter today than folks years ago... however careful study of the USA will show the founding fathers were a lot wiser than ANY polecat today.

Ahhh, studying history from TV shows...
Might want to study revolutions and formation of countries all through history and compare that to the USA... some interesting things come out.
And concerning the Civil war: It was NOT about slavery, regardless of what is a popular belief. The Civil war was the result of Northern bankers who tried to corner the cotton market (grown by southern plantation owners)... not too different than the Hunt brothers of Texas trying to corner the silver market in the late 1970's, or a group of bankers trying to corner the mortgage market a few years back. The folks in the South decided to pull out of the USA. The folks in the North wanted their control, so they persuaded the North to start the Civil war.
If one studies the history of war, they will find wars are basically over two things: money and religion.
Yes, some will say OH, the USA fought for freedom... Well dig a little deeper and one finds the English govt was literally extorting the USA in taxation (like the federal govt is doing today). Yeah, it is usually about money (the crusades were about money also, just using religion as a cover).

We need to get beyond the idea that the right to vote is the goal... and keep in mind the destruction that comes from folks who do not use that right properly. This idea democracy is a free-for-all... well study the 'Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire' (by Gibbons)... there is a map of what way a society self-destructs when rights become more important than the outcome.

The problem today is: History has been perverted in the way it is taught. Imagine that: If a polecat (politician) has a goal... all they have to do is pervert the way history is taught in the public schools... and they will literally train the next generation to believe whatever they (the polecats) want. Think that does not happen: study history... you will be surprised... it happens ALL the time. A better word for a politician is deceitful manipulator. It is the job of the voting citizen to constantly be on guard to see through what 'scemes' the polecats are trying to pull... and keep then corralled.

Remember the words of one of the founding fathers:
When asked by a citizen what kind of government they had designed for the USA, he responded: I give you a Republic, if you can keep it. I would suggest folks think carefully about that statement... there is a HUGE amount of understanding of what is wrong with govts in that one sentence.

Off to support the capitalistic system... it works for me when govt stays out of my life.

[barbar]

The goal is to keep politicians under control... which is NOT happening in the USA.
Agree
The goal the founding fathers had in mind was a totally FREE system where folks could work harder and gain more... and the lazy person paid a price for their lack of taking responsibility for their life. One might want to remember the USA was basically formed by folks from a few (mostly British) countries in Europe, those folks were tired of oppressive government. Now-a-days, we think government is our nanny and is supposed to take care of us... we do not see the dangers of that attitude.
One of the founding fathers said: Those that do not value freedom enough to fight and die for it, do not deserve it. Now I know it is politically 'cool' to think we are smarter today than folks years ago... however careful study of the USA will show the founding fathers were a lot wiser than ANY polecat today.

Ahhh, studying history from TV shows...
Might want to study revolutions and formation of countries all through history and compare that to the USA... some interesting things come out.
And concerning the Civil war: It was NOT about slavery, regardless of what is a popular belief. The Civil war was the result of Northern bankers who tried to corner the cotton market (grown by southern plantation owners)... not too different than the Hunt brothers of Texas trying to corner the silver market in the late 1970's, or a group of bankers trying to corner the mortgage market a few years back. The folks in the South decided to pull out of the USA. The folks in the North wanted their control, so they persuaded the North to start the Civil war. Was aware of this
If one studies the history of war, they will find wars are basically over two things: money and religion.
Yes, some will say OH, the USA fought for freedom... Well dig a little deeper and one finds the English govt was literally extorting the USA in taxation (like the federal govt is doing today). Yeah, it is usually about money (the crusades were about money also, just using religion as a cover).

We need to get beyond the idea that the right to vote is the goal... and keep in mind the destruction that comes from folks who do not use that right properly. This idea democracy is a free-for-all... well study the 'Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire' (by Gibbons)... there is a map of what way a society self-destructs when rights become more important than the outcome.

The problem today is: History has been perverted in the way it is taught. Imagine that: If a polecat (politician) has a goal... all they have to do is pervert the way history is taught in the public schools... and they will literally train the next generation to believe whatever they (the polecats) want. Think that does not happen: study history... you will be surprised... it happens ALL the time. A better word for a politician is deceitful manipulator. It is the job of the voting citizen to constantly be on guard to see through what 'scemes' the polecats are trying to pull... and keep then corralled.
As a kid, history was a major part (not USA) is was a cheap interest
Remember the words of one of the founding fathers:
When asked by a citizen what kind of government they had designed for the USA, he responded: I give you a Republic, if you can keep it. I would suggest folks think carefully about that statement... there is a HUGE amount of understanding of what is wrong with govts in that one sentence.

Off to support the capitalistic system... it works for me when govt stays out of my life.

But if your life, interacts with others lives, then rules need to be in place.

Even those in power, understand they need to keep the peasants under control, by force, faith, potential, or some level of relative freedom. (other wise revolution occurs)
Empires come and go, it could be said for many reasons, but it basically comes down to the empires profit ratio. When it drops the empire retrenches.
When your constitution was written, USA was both internal expanding (free land and resources) and export products and transferring wealth from European empires. At that time could all immigrants, basically stake his own piece of land, at a minimal charge, therefore build one own wealth, and was this wealth at that time also made on the back of slave labour.
Could this statement be made today? ( I am not saying there is no opportunity left, but some what more limited)
I not care to much for the rich, as they can look after themsleves, I also do care much about the lazy. But today we have a large amount who work very hard (or would like to if given the opportunity), these are the ones who i care for, if it was not for a bit of luck (and effort), that well could have been me.
For that reason only, do I believe in social responsibility as being part of my individual freedom. If all employers were moral and covered life time cost (related to our standards), then the many of the issues we are talking about would not exist and less government could then be achieved.

[ga-hvac-tech]

The market-place will resolve ALL of the issues you speak of... if left to do its magic... it is simple:

Folks buy from and sell to folks they CHOOSE to, and do not buy from or sell to folks they choose NOT to... and here is the KEY: the job of the govt is to GUARANTEE this level playing field regardless of political favors. So the cheaters and greed mongers are put out/business, while the honest folks prosper. There is, however, a grit of sand in the sun-tan oil though:

When someone does not follow the motto of free enterprise: Lasse-faire; which means 'let the buyer beware', they get burned. In days past when true freedom was the practice... getting burned a few times was the way folks developed maturity to understand what was 'a deal too good to be true'. Back when I started running my business, I was told by many a seasoned contractor I would have to 'pay my dues'... which I learned meant struggling to UNDERSTAND (experience here) how to run a business. IMO life is no different, regardless of whether we are talking of running a business, buying a car, choosing a mate for life, etc... we learn from experience (in choosing a mate, hopefully we learn by dating rather than divorce). Now-a-days, the govt supposedly is gonna fix it for you... The only problem is; without getting burned a few times, a person probably does not develop that maturity to 'smell' a bad deal.

There is, IMO, a subtle twist to this 'risk free' society the govts suggest they can provide: I believe the govts WANT folks to not mature into being too wise to be burned... that way it is a lot easier for govts (read that dishonest polecats) to amass HUGE power bases at the EXPENSE of the citizens.

And BTW: I was a student of history for decades. I kinda lost interest when I realized our govt had corrupted the teaching of history to the point few folks understand anymore... because the facts have been spun too much; example: What the Civil war REALLY was about.
Think with me: If a dishonest polecat wants to pull a financial scam... it would be a LOT easier if the folks he answers to (the voters in his district) are not smart enough to catch on to what he/she is doing. However if the voters understand the history of polecats... they WILL see through this greedy dude/dudette, and not vote for them. So IMO the political machine has a vested interest in altering history. Again, the example of what the Civil war really was about. BTW: most of the folks I know locally as friends (both from their 20's to retirement), SAW this housing crises and the economic meltdown coming for literally YEARS. So why did it happen?
Another twist on the Civil war discussion: Making it about slavery is IMO a grand way to create division and diversion as well as a 'rights mentality'. The govt is supposed to be ending racism... yet they continue to pour gasoline on the fire with endless race issues. Ever wonder about that curious paradox?
Oh, and lets not get started about a BLACK president and a BLACK head of Justice who are SOLIDLY on the side of fanning the flames of any racial issue they can use to literally BUY Black votes. It does not take even a grade-school kid to see through that deception.

True freedom, IMO, requires a sense of responsibility from ALL the folks given the right to vote. Otherwise, the system will collapse into a mess of greed and usury. So IMO the only way to preserve the wisdom necessary to keep the country great; is to only allow folks who have EARNED the right, to vote.
Check out a movie called 'Starship Troopers'... it is science fiction. Part of the premise is one has to serve in the military (among other things) to earn citizenship. The movie is basically a 'coming of age' movie, in the sense of following a few kids maturing through hardship. Another one more current is 'The Hunger Games', which tracks one girl through the same life-changes. IMO the lack of that transition from kid to adult (mentally), is the larger problem of societies.
And now that we see this wisdom in the movies, lets look at real life: The Roman Empire was probably the greatest nation in history... and citizenship was heralded as something to be desired... and folks had to EARN it.
Seems to me in both fiction and history; we have this same reality: HARD work to grow in maturity and wisdom... is the way life works.

So what does this 'hard work' and 'maturity and wisdom' have to do with govts: The job of the govt is to GUARANTEE a level playing field for ALL citizens, so they can go through the process of hard work to reach maturity and wisdom. Take away the process, and we end up with the mess we have today; that being corrupt polecats buying the votes of lazy bums and selfish warlord wanna-bee's.

Yes, I am absolutely convinced the founding fathers understood all I have written... and they tried to create a country that would stay on that track. Yet humankind, in their folly of thinking they were smarter than the founders... have more or less made a grand mess. So again: How do we get to a place where govt corruption and interference in one's daily lives is not an issue.

[royc]

All the voting in the world cant change what is happening, for we now have a goverment which is a criminal enterprise. Its like saying when Al Capone was running his gang, that if they had replaced him with an honest man, it would have been a good gang, its nonsense.

I'm sorry to say that this will just have to take its course, and I'm afraid the outcome will be violent, for no criminal goverment ever gives up power peacefully, its a fact, all you have to do is look at the middle east, and our own history.

Now I dont care what political persuasion you are, the fact is that one of the person that is running for president was totally ignored by the media and purposely marginalized, should have opened our eyes, which should also tell us that our votes dont matter, for at the end we will have to vote for those who are put in power, by those criminal elements that control it.

We, the voters, should have been mad as hell years ago, but we just went like zombies to the polls and got sheared again, like good little sheep, and nothing changed, we keep sending our young men and woman to die for the economic benefit of multinational corporations, who control the political system not only in this country, but many others.

Google "The Confession of an Economic Hit Man".


Roy