RATATATATATATA. KA-BOOM! You're (truly) dead.

[PeterD]

The United States is the greatest country on earth.

I didn't know you were a comedian as well.

~PeterD

[Rhuiden]

The United States is the greatest country on earth.

I didn't know you were a comedian as well. :wink:

~PeterD

I do what I can.

Rhuiden

[Lupus minimus]

You must compare apples to apples not apples to oranges.

Please examine http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperai ... pples.html

jc

[Jefferson Cicero]

I know of the Harvard study, PeterD. I dont remember the details of it but it has long since been proven to be not an unbiased study at all, but rather it was a deeply flawed 'study' not based on any real consideration of the evidence but rather on intentionally skewed figures. It was done for political purposes. It is a piece of propaganda designed to justify a campaign being waged for years by elitists of the Left who hate and mistrust the common man and want to disarm him so they can dominate him. That may sound like 'conspiracy theory' but it is a fact.

Crime drops when gun control is relaxed because law abiding citizens have better access to means of self defence, and criminals are not too keen on attacking someone who may well put a big hole in them. Why is that so hard for you to understand? What did you say about STUPIDITY, about CHIMPS?

I am not afraid of being accused of 'racism'. That lable has been misused and thrown around irresponsibly for so long and in so many ways that it has no real meaning at all any more. The use of it by people to lable others says more about the users of the word than it does about those they lable. Shame on you, PeterD, for implying that I am a 'racist'. Dont throw labels or implications around so irresponsibly. Ponder your thoughts well before you post.

Hmmm...I do not think history -- US history -- is your forte.

I know more of the truth about the history of the US than you ever are likely to learn. You need not lecture me about what it means to be an American, or about this country's strengths or faults. The Founding Fathers had just thrown off one tyranny by means of rebellion. They used guns to do it, guns that were in the hands common citizens. They knew that the US government might one day become corrupt beyond redemption (it has) and might need to be overthrown the way they did it, by rebellion. DUUUUHHHHH!!!!!!! Now, is that too hard for you to undertand??? Your statement, after quoting what I wrote, shows a profound ignorance of American history, and it is as stupid as it is for some to say that the South had no right to secede from a Union that was itself established by secession from the British Empire. Would you prefer to leave your own countrymen unarmed and unable to defend themselves against a mad dictator if one were to arise?

After reading such a statement, it makes one wonder whether there is an overwhelming prevalence of stupidity (and probably insanity) in the United States. It would help to account for the DOPE (aka chimp) you have in the White House.

You have been very insulting, and this tells me a lot about you. You show lack of simple propriety. Canadians have a reputation for being civil and having good manners. You are not representing your country very well. As for our presidents, what you said about Bush cannot be denied, but you need to look at your own leaders in Canada, and consider what that may say about Canadians. They are no wiser than Americans, and their leaders no wiser. You have certainly proven yourself to be no more wise than Bush himself.

Other have accused you of being a flamer, That's exactly what you ARE.

[klewlis]

k guys, vigorous debate is fine, but let's not stain it with personal attacks.

[Episcopus]

As the conexio verborum please stop this thread If we confined all American politics discussions to the Agora I am sure most would be silent.

[klewlis]

....those people who are using the guns for wrong purposes--they are the reason for the law in the first place!

This is exactly my point. No law will affect these people. They will still get their guns no matter how tough it is and they will still use them for bad purposes. So why should we take something away from everyone because a few are using it to do evil.

But the idea is to make it *harder* for them to get it. Sure, some of the more powerful criminals will still get whatever they like, but some of the smaller ones will not be able to (teenagers, for example). The tougher it is for someone to get their hands on something, the fewer we'll have floating around.

They always say that and I always laugh because in Canada the opposite has proven true. They toughened up our laws and made it really hard to register a gun... so all the law-abiding citizens who use their guns for hunting and other legitimate purposes have simply refused to register. Now we have thousands of people with "illegal" weapons and the government is powerless to do anything about it without a great deal of trouble.

Why is this situation better? All the law has done is to make criminals out of good people.

I didn't say it was better--only amusing.

Anyway, I never said they should be illegal. I am too much of a western girl for that. But I certainly don't have a problem with outlawing certain *types* of guns which are obviously not going to be used for any innocent purpose. The right to bear arms does not mean the right to any kind of arms you like.

Who is to say what an innocent purpose is? Why would it be wrong if I enjoyed going to the gun range and firing my AR-15 (I don't have one but would like to) or any gun of my choice? I do not think it is the governments job, or anyone elses, to tell me what kind of weapons I can or cannot have.

Rhuiden

I DO think it is the government's job to tell me what kind of weapons I can and cannot have. Shall we all start storing nuclear weapons in our back yards? How about hand grenades and home-made bombs? It's the government's job to protect the safety of the general public. One of the ways they try to do this is by limiting accessibility and legality of certain weapons. You are still allowed to bear arms--thus protecting your felt rights, but certain types of arms may be off limits. I have no problems with that.

[klewlis]

As the conexio verborum please stop this thread :shock: If we confined all American politics discussions to the Agora I am sure most would be silent.

lol. that's not such a bad idea.

If the discussion can remain civil, we will keep it open. If there are any more personal attacks, we will close it.

[Jefferson Cicero]

Point well taken, Episcopus. I suppose that if we could have carried on this discussion in Latin we could have proven that we haven't just been wasting our time here. There are no Ciceros in this thread, myself included. I said I wouldn't get involved in a thread like this again, yet here I am.

Perhaps a Debate forum could be started. In order to keep it civil, it would pertain only to ancient subjects and not modern politics. Perhaps debates should be carried on only in Latin and/or Greek. Debaters would also be required to point out logical fallacies in each other's arguments. Other areas on this site may provide oppotunities for this, but I dont think there is a forum dedicated to it.

On the other hand, I dont know my Latin well enough for this yet, and most of us probably need more training in recognising logical fallacies, so would there be any point to it?

[Episcopus]

On the other hand from Cicero we have had enough respublica etc. to last a lifetime. He even rambles about it to Brutus who I am sure does not give a sheet of papyrus.

[PeterD]

Crime drops when gun control is relaxed because law abiding citizens have better access to means of self defence, and criminals are not too keen on attacking someone who may well put a big hole in them.

No comment merited.

I am not afraid of being accused of 'racism'. That lable has been misused and thrown around irresponsibly for so long and in so many ways that it has no real meaning at all any more. The use of it by people to lable others says more about the users of the word than it does about those they lable. Shame on you, PeterD, for implying that I am a 'racist'. Dont throw labels or implications around so irresponsibly. Ponder your thoughts well before you post.

I said it SOUNDED racist. Here's your 'glorious' quote again:

As for crime statistics, when you factor out racial minorites, both the crime rate and deathrate Amereicans are roughly on the same low level as those of Canada and Europe. Kepp in mind that whites probably own most of the guns, and likely own more per capita than other racial group. Is it 'racist' to say this when the FBI's on statistics show it to be true?

It reads even worse the second time!

I know more of the truth about the history of the US than you ever are likely to learn. You need not lecture me about what it means to be an American, or about this country's strengths or faults.

I am not. Hey, ignorance is bliss, no?

The Founding Fathers had just thrown off one tyranny by means of rebellin. They used guns to do it, guns that were in the hands common citizens. They knew that the US government might one day become corrupt beyond redemption (it has) and might need to be overthrown the way they did it, by rebellion. DUUUUHHHHH!!!!!!!

I hate to prick your bubble, but I MUST tell you that your government has TANKS, FIGHTER JETS, NUCLEAR BOMBS, and other nasty such weapons. Just how do you and other fine citizens intend, if need be, to overthrow the government with your pistols and shotguns?

May I suggest a less violent and much proven approach? Have you ever heard of elections!?

Now, is that too hard for you to understand???

Yes, in a sober state it is hard me to understand your logic.

Your statement, after quoting what I wrote, shows a profound ignorance of American history, and it is as stupid as it is for some to say that the South had no right to secede from a Union that was itself established by secession from the British Empire.

You like traveling?

You have been very insulting, and this tells me a lot about you. You show lack of simple propriety. Canadians have a reputation for being civil and having good manners. You are not representing your country very well.

I am sorry.

As for our presidents, what you said about Bush cannot be denied, but you need to look at your own leaders in Canada, and consider what that may say about Canadians. They are no wiser than Americans, and their leaders no wiser.

Hey, we agree on something.

You have certainly proven yourself to be no more wise than Bush himself.

Other have accused you of being a flamer, That's exactly what you ARE

Now THAT hurts.

~PeterD

[klewlis]

Perhaps a Debate forum could be started.

The academy is more appropriate for such things. However, civility is still a must.

[Kopio]

hehehehe....y'all are at it again!! Peter, Peter, Peter, Peter! You never fail to give me a good chuckle. I must say though, enough of the ad hominem (to everyone involved)! We can remain civilized and disagree. Personally, I own several guns. I was brought up by a father who was in the military (before I was born) and has worked in Law Enforcement for almost 30 years. Lemme tell you something....there are some downright scary Americans out there. I'm not talking about the conservative right wing type (we have our own special set of faults....yes, I said WE), but there are crazy messed up people on even the nicest of communities.

I live in a pretty good neighborhood, I have a nice house, car, blah, blah, blah...... About 2 months ago, I had someone try to talk their way into my house at about 12:30AM in the morning, saying they had "run out of gas" (there is a gas station just a few blocks down the street), this is a common method, [)rug-addict types use to get into someones house to "use the phone" and either case your home to break in later, or pull out something shiny and ask for your valuables.

I answered the door with my 357. Not pointed at them mind you, they couldn't even see it, but it was tucked into my bathrobe, just in case.

I am not Rambo, or Dirty Harry. I think that ALL life is a gift from God, and it is a sacred thing not to be treated lightly......but I'll be d@mned if I'm gonna let some wacko come into MY HOUSE and endanger my wife and my family.

As far as the ban goes.....you have always been able to get the preban weapons, it has just costed a LOT more money. If the gun was manufactured BEFORE the ban (all the gun manufacturers bumped up production bigtime before the ban, to ensure there would be an adaquate supply) it has always been legal. You could go down and buy an AR-15 two weeks ago, the only difference is that it was made 10 years ago, and would cost you twice as much.

In closing....I would like to quote a favorite Archie Bunker line of mine. His daughter, disgusted with the gun lobby tells her dad Archie. "Do you know that thousands of people are killed every year with handguns?" To which Archie sarcastically replies, "Would it make you feel any better if they were pushed out of windows!"

Ok....that's my two denarri worth

[Rhuiden]

As far as the ban goes.....you have always been able to get the preban weapons, it has just costed a LOT more money. If the gun was manufactured BEFORE the ban (all the gun manufacturers bumped up production bigtime before the ban, to ensure there would be an adaquate supply) it has always been legal. You could go down and buy an AR-15 two weeks ago, the only difference is that it was made 10 years ago, and would cost you twice as much.

I agree with Kopio on this. I own a pre-ban SKS which was given to me by my step-father. It cost him less that $100 because at that time, the market was flooded with them. As soon as the ban passed, my gun became very valuable, not because it was a good gun but becuase the government was telling people that we could no longer import them. I am not sure what the price topped out at. So I guess I should be a little sad because as of midnight on 9/13/04 my gun is almost worthless again. Oh well, I will just have to live with it.

But the idea is to make it *harder* for them to get it. Sure, some of the more powerful criminals will still get whatever they like, but some of the smaller ones will not be able to (teenagers, for example). The tougher it is for someone to get their hands on something, the fewer we'll have floating around.

I am sorry but I must disagree with this thought. As soon as we tell someone that they can't have something, that becomes the one thing they can't live without. If you have kids try this experiment. Take two things they like about the same and tell them they can have one but not the other. Wait a few minutes and asked them which one they want. From my experience with my kids, they want what they were told they could not have. Most adults are just bigger kids in this way. As soon as we tell people they can't have a particular gun it will become the best selling gun on the market (even if it is the blackmarket). As a result, instead of fewer in circulation there are more but just not as visible.

I DO think it is the government's job to tell me what kind of weapons I can and cannot have.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think the government has any business being involved with this. In fact, there are very few things the federal government should be doing. The more they leave me and other citizens alone the better.

Just curious, has anyone who has read or participated in this discussion changed their mind or been swayed one way or the other? I was thinking of the time I have spent on this discussion and I am not sure if I have wasted my time or if it was time well spent? I enjoy debating the touchy subjects and find it hard to keep my mouth shut (or my fingers from typing, as the case may be) when they come up. Maybe next time I will be successful....probably not.

Rhuiden

[classicalclarinet]

Well, yes. It's always nice to see what the other side has to say. In fact, I think we'll be all better off if we spent 3 weeks with conservatives/liberals we don't agree with toghether in a same room.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The constitution is kind of open-ended here in my opinion. It does not say that the gov't may not do anything to regulate some arms, i.e. limiting them.
In fact, the Freedom of Speech clause is limited too; If the 2nd Amnd is taken to be absolute, then anyone could be out in schools, courtrooms with a rifle. That woul be comparable to chatting in the middle of a trial, which could possibly get you in jail. Also a strict interpretation would allow everyone including minors to have guns, and I don't think anything good can happen from a teenager carrying a gun into school, as we can see from many school-shootings that have occurred.

I would be extra cautious if a serious felon was allowed to carry any weapon of his choosing in his back pocket, either. There is nothing much to prevent a criminal from killing someone after he acquires a potent firearm.

[Jeff Tirey]

You Americans are crazy. Imagine jeff with a gat.

We ARE crazy about guns:-) I had my first pocket knife at 6 and my first rifle when I was 8. I'm from a long line of farmers from Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

[Episcopus]

Your smiling about it scares me imagine you were a deer. I am content in Wales at least there are not so many firearms about.

[Matteos]

Hello all,

Since the battle seems to have cooled down a little and Peter is off somewhere planning his next coup d’open board (rebels are we, born to be free, just like the fish in the sea...if you’ve never seen Bananas, forget it...) I’d like to make a general comment.

I tend to agree with Rhuiden to some extent, in that banning guns is not the answer. To find the answer you probably have to make sure you’re asking the right question. The problem is that Americans are killing each other with guns. The answer is not to just take away the guns but ask ‘why’ Americans are killing each other with guns. ‘Why’ are Americans afraid of each other?

Americans are afraid of each other because some Americans are dangerous. Why are some Americans so dangerous? How did they become dangerous?

I think the answer may be the attitude of segregation in the States, exclusionistic behaviour as opposed to inclusionistic. Of course it may not be realistic to ‘include’ when someone is pointing a gun in your face because the problem has already propagated, and there is no use attacking the symptom...but the solution must be planned for, several moves away, several generations away.

On a fundamental level, there must be some countrywide homogenization of the education system (bordering on rhetoric here...but then ‘a teaspoon of sugar makes the socialism go down, makes the socialism go down’) The quality of some things should simply not be determined by how much you can pay.

There must be one underlying, unified group in the U.S., of course allowing for differences of opinion, etc., but fundamentally Americans all, and all equal. Not today, not immediately. Eventually. Then needing a gun to protect yourself won’t be such an issue. Because you don’t need to protect yourself from your friends.

[cicerosum]

PeterD is my new best friend. Would you like a new neighbor dear? We are considering a move to north of the border if Dubya wins again...

[klewlis]

PeterD is my new best friend. Would you like a new neighbor dear? We are considering a move to north of the border if Dubya wins again...

I recommend western canada as opposed to Peter's eastern (sorry Peter!), especially since you are from california... you will be more comfortable with the atmosphere in the west. unless you must have massive groups of people and traffic around you at all times... in which case you'd better move to toronto.

[PeterD]

PeterD is my new best friend. Would you like a new neighbor dear? We are considering a move to north of the border if Dubya wins again...

You are too kind.

You know, as disgraceful a man as Dubya is -- drunk driving convictions; using and selling illicit drugs; avoiding military service; lying to the American public; etc., etc., etc. -- maybe it woulnd't be so bad a second term.

I know, it sounds a bit crazy the thought of someone like GWB, a man with an I.Q. just straddling into the teens, as President of the great United States. (Can you in your wildest dreams ever imagine GWB being a textkit member?) But hey! He's screwed so many things up that there is not much left. Plus, maybe he should clean up the messes he's created. Instead of others always cleaning up after him every time he runs afoul, it's high time he rolled up his sleaves and cleaned after himself, including the Iraqi fiasco -- what a bloody mess! -- which has cost the lives of tens of thousands of human beings!.

Here's a little bitty segment from Kitty Kelly's new book on the Bush family:

Page 253: At Andover, George W. Bush writes a morose essay about his sister's death. Searching for a synonym for "tears." he consults a thesaurus and writes, "And the lacerates ran down my cheeks." A teacher labels the paper "disgraceful."


~PeterD

[Emma_85]

The problem with Bush being re-elected is that I feel that it would really convince everyone that American people don't care. I mean outside the US people will believe (and maybe be right to believe it) that if the Americans re-elect Bush, that they support all he has done and especially his foreign politics (as most people don't care about US home politics, except when it comes to the American economy as the near breakdown of the dollar under Bush has started economic crisis in other parts of the world). That will alienate the Americans even more.
I don't think the problem is that he is stupid, intelligent men can be just as bad (see Blair).

[Mongoose42]

Hello again Peter,
I have been lurking in this thread for about a week and now I have something to say. Several requests were made for civility toward each other in the posts. I would like to extend that request to the humans being discussed in the posts.
It is one thing to say you disagree with Bush and to make jokes about him. Attacking him with unfounded conjectures that are over-repeated by the media is a slightly more barbaric behavior than is expected of an intellectual person claiming civility.
This post is not meant to be offensive so with all due respect if you wouldn't mind keeping the personal attacks to a minimum it will be greatly appreciated.

On the subject of guns, I think the government just needs to enforce the current laws and hope for the best because a gun free Utopia will never exist.

P.S. I apologize for my lack of skill in spelling

[PeterD]

Hi Mongoose42, nice to hear from you.

Several requests were made for civility toward each other in the posts. I would like to extend that request to the humans being discussed in the posts.

I guess you're including GWB as a species member of homo sapien, right?

Seriously, I have the outmost respect for kind, hardworking, and decent people; GWB is NOT one of them. If he were not in public office, I wouldn't care about any of his shortcomings or nastiness; that would be his family's business and the people around him.

Unfortunately, that man is indeed in public office, by somehow managing to steal an election and becoming the most powerful man of this fragile planet. (In Greece, the Greeks sarcastically refer to him as ὁ πλανητάρχης.) And since his foreign policy -- I, as a non US citizen, am not concerned about US domestic issues: 45 million medically uninsured Americans, out-of -control government debt, dilapidated infrastructures, the shear impossibility of a middle class family sending their kid to a good college, etc., -- is wrecking havoc on the world scene, I have a right to speak up, all be it sarcastically sometimes.

It is one thing to say you disagree with Bush and to make jokes about him. Attacking him with unfounded conjectures that are over-repeated by the media is a slightly more barbaric behavior than is expected of an intellectual person claiming civility.

Unfortunately, the media has been very kind to GWB. There is no other way -- except, maybe, for vasts amount of money -- a man with so many shortcomings, mostly of character and intelligence, can become President of the great United States. Hardly a peep about his horrible tenure as Governor of Texas; his criminal past; his awful treatment of John McCain during the 2000 republican nomination campaign; the disastrous wars. I can go on, and on.

This post is not meant to be offensive so with all due respect if you wouldn't mind keeping the personal attacks to a minimum it will be greatly appreciated.

While I have been very much preoccupied lately with my Greek studies -- Pharr's Homeric Greek, Greek prose (Anabasis) -- sometimes I like to get on the Open Board and say my piece about current events, etc. I'll take your advice, though, and make every effort to tone it down. Hey, have you noticed? I did not once use the word 'chimp' to describe GWB in this post.

Sincerely,

~PeterD