Madness (1 Viewer)

[Rich]

Building a government that cares for all is nothing like Hitlers society

 

[ColinEssex]

Building a government that cares for all is nothing like Hitlers society

It is to the gun totin' Southerners. They like things to be in the 19th century - everything was black or white in those days, and a man was free to kill whatever he wanted. Good old days eh Ken?

That's why McCain will get in and the bloodbath will continue both in the US and in Iraq.

Col

 

[Alc]

The whole idea of the government controlling everything and making it so that the individual does not have to think for themselves or be responsible for anything, like taking away guns and so called state run health care, is to water down the gene pool. Kind of the reverse of what hilter was trying to do. The more irresponsible, lazy people they have the more they, the 'smart' politicians can tax and control everything...

I can understand the argument that universal health care allows people to survive who may not otherwise have done so, thereby potentially weakening the 'genetic stock' - as you say, the opposite of what Hitler wanted to achieve - but how does stopping someone from owning a gun affect the gene pool adversely?

 

[KenHigg]

Taking away guns does nothing to address the underlying problem, i.e. people that kill with them. That being we are not teaching our children how to be responsible with whatever we have access to. We wake up one morning watch the news and someone gets injured with fireworks, so we say lets make a rule to ban fireworks. The next morning we see where someone gets injured with a gun, so we make a rule to ban guns. I knew a boy scout leader that actually banned his kids from playing with sticks because one of his boys got an eye injury from playing with them. Soon we are living with blanket rules that give no consideration to a person’s competency. My daughter thought when she turned 16 she was going to jump in a car and buzz down the road just because that was the law. Think again. So now with all these rules nobody has to attempt to be a competent, thinking, hard working individual, just go by the rules. Eventually the rules will have us all participating in life on the level of the least competent person(s) in the group, we'll all be restricted by the abilities of the lowest common denominator.

Nirvana should be in the complete other direction were we live in a society where nothing is ‘banned’ or has a rule attached to it, we all simply know what is right and wrong and have an inherit consideration for others. Like knowing that it is not right to do something where we might get lung cancer and heart disease and expecting everybody else to step up and help pay for the health services.

Just my two cents

 

[Alc]

Taking away guns does nothing to address the underlying problem, i.e. people that kill with them. That being we are not teaching our children how to be responsible with whatever we have access to. We wake up one morning watch the news and someone gets injured with fireworks, so we say lets make a rule to ban fireworks. The next morning we see where someone gets injured with a gun, so we make a rule to ban guns. I knew a boy scout leader that actually banned his kids from playing with sticks because one of his boys got an eye injury from playing with them. Soon we are living with blanket rules that give no consideration to a person’s competency. My daughter thought when she turned 16 she was going to jump in a car and buzz down the road just because that was the law. Think again. So now with all these rules nobody has to attempt to be a competent, thinking, hard working individual, just go by the rules. Eventually the rules will have us all participating in life on the level of the least competent person(s) in the group, we'll all be restricted by the abilities of the lowest common denominator.

Nirvana should be in the complete other direction were we live in a society where nothing is ‘banned’ or has a rule attached to it, we all simply know what is right and wrong and have an inherit consideration for others. Like knowing that it is not right to do something where we might get lung cancer and heart disease and expecting everybody else to step up and help pay for the health services.

Okay, I see what you're getting at now.

That doesn't really take into account reality, though, does it? In the US - as in all other countries, from what I can see - human nature will always outweigh any 'ideal' situation we might imagine. Communism wasn't a bad thing as a concept, but look at how it got abused. The same goes for religion, for many trade unions, the list is endless.

You stopped your daughter from jumping in a car and driving just because she was old enough. Why not let her do it and learn from her mistakes? Because she'd likely kill someone, if not herself.

Saying that people should be able to make up their own minds with no government intervention because, in an ideal world, they'd eventually learn to make the right decisions is, at best, unrealistic. I haven't see recent figures on US gun crime, but are the number of shootings noticeably declining? If not, that would seem to suggest that many people aren't exactly learning anything. The government has sat back and allowed the American people 200+ years to learn appropriate gun use. How much longer should it allow innocent people to get shot by the slow learners before stepping in?

 

[KenHigg]

The government has sat back and allowed the American people 200+ years to learn appropriate gun use.

You're sounding like a democrat. The govenment isn't supposed to dictate to the American people, it's the other way around. And you don't give up on trying to teach kids how to be responsible. It's like saying how long will you try to teach your kid to walk? You'd say never, 'I'm going to try until he walks!' It's a magic formula...

Don't get me wrong ALC, I'm not a 'gun' fanatic. I don't mind regisitering my guns, etc. My truck is registered so they know it's mine, no difference. And I am for drawing the line in the sand where we don't have fully automatic stuff floating around, etc...

 

[Alc]

You're sounding like a democrat. The govenment isn't supposed to dictate to the American people, it's the other way around. And you don't give up on trying to teach kids how to be responsible. It's like saying how long will you try to teach your kid to walk? You'd say never, 'I'm going to try until he walks!' It's a magic formula...

Don't get me wrong ALC, I'm not a 'gun' fanatic. I don't mind regisitering my guns, etc. My truck is registered so they know it's mine, no difference. And I am for drawing the line in the sand where we don't have fully automatic stuff floating around, etc...

I wasn't suggesting a dictatorship, just the admission that the current method isn't working. Isn't it the responsibility of the government to look after the population? If I lived in a country where plenty of people were getting shot for no reason, I'd want to feel that the people in power were doing all they could to make it as safe as possible.

What if I wanted to play with explosives? Should I be allowed, even if there was a chance I may kill innocent people?

 

[KenHigg]

I submit it is working, just not as well as we would like, and I guess it never will, no matter how many laws we pass. And in my opinion the basic purpose of government is not to 'take care' of the population, it should be the other way around. A governments primary purpose is to prove basic services to society that individuals would not be able to provide on thier own, such as water systems and schools. And if you had been taught right from wrong you'd know not to endanger others.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

but how does stopping someone from owning a gun affect the gene pool adversely?

Stupid people's guns are used by their stupid children to shoot themselves, thereby preventing propagation of the stupid gene?

I had heard that more people are shot in America with their own gun than criminals are shot with them. Not sure if that's true.

Just think of it as nature's way of getting rid of the need for a right to bear arms.

Disclaimer: yes, I am joking (mostly).

 

[Alc]

I submit it is working, just not as well as we would like, and I guess it never will, no matter how many laws we pass. And in my opinion the basic purpose of government is not to 'take care' of the population, it should be the other way around. A governments primary purpose is to prove basic services to society that individuals would not be able to provide on thier own, such as water systems and schools. And if you had been taught right from wrong you'd know not to endanger others.

Okay, again, that's fine in an ideal world. In reality, organisations like the police force (and the army?) are necessary precisely because people can't be trusted to behave themselves and not endanger others.

Are you suggesting there is no point at which a government should step in and exert some control, regardless of how many of it's citizens are dying?

 

[Brianwarnock]

And if you had been taught right from wrong you'd know not to endanger others.

Ok Ken you are just kiddin', right?

Brian

 

[KenHigg]

Are you suggesting there is no point at which a government should step in and exert some control, regardless of how many of it's citizens are dying?

No. I'm simply saying that we should not be fooled into thinking that goverment can solve the underlying problems of people killing other people with guns (or whatever) by passing a law banning guns.

 

[KenHigg]

Ok Ken you are just kiddin', right?

Brian

About what?

 

[Alc]

No. I'm simply saying that we should not be fooled into thinking that goverment can solve the underlying problems of people killing other people with guns (or whatever) by passing a law banning guns.

...but it would dramatically reduce the numbers of innocent people killed. Surely, some improvement is better than none? Any work to attack the underlying problems could be done just as easily afterwards.

 

[Rich]

Like knowing that it is not right to do something where we might get lung cancer and heart disease and expecting everybody else to step up and help pay for the health services.

Just my two cents

Just love the stuff you I'm all right Jack philosophy

 

[KenHigg]

Just love the stuff you I'm all right Jack philosophy

I can beleive that - I learned it from you and col

 

[Rich]

I can beleive that - I learned it from you and col

I've never been that selfish towards my neighbour, I still love them as my own, metaphorically speaking of course

 

[statsman]

The problem in the US is that guns are part of the culture. Even though most Americans do not own a gun, they feel it is an important part of their national identity that they can get one if they want it.
The US gun manufacturing industry is huge. There are dozens of gun makers and they employ thousands of people. They also have one of the largest lobbying groups in Congress. They have made guns part of the American scene.
The genie is out of the bottle, and I for one can't think of any way to get him back in.
Amercians seem to feel that several thousand needless deaths each year is a small price to pay for the right to bear arms.

 

[KenHigg]

...Amercians seem to feel that several thousand needless deaths each year is a small price to pay for the right to bear arms.

How many driving related deaths will it take before you sell your car and walk to work?

 

[Rich]

How many driving related deaths will it take before you sell your car and walk to work?

Even in the US the right to own and drive a car is regulated, owning a gun has nothing like the same control, there's no comparison between the two, you're just clutching a straws