Obama is Trying to Take Away Even More of Our Freedom

[Darkmoon]

Not even going to get into the debate - I hate all politicians (regardless of "party") by default - but you can't honestly think the Electoral College system prevents one state from having more influence than another. Given that number of electoral votes is determined by population, and states like New York and California have way too damn many people, it's clear to see that doesn't come to fruition.

If the system worked as you said, then every state would have exactly one vote, regardless of population. If a majority in the state vote one way-that should be THE vote, end of discussion. As it stands, to say that California's 53 votes versus Arkansas's 6 doesn't create an imbalance is laughable.

I think the problem is that every system has flaws. If it's each person has a vote towards the political leader, then it's major population centres that will be heard and there concerns foremost on politicians minds. A politician isn't going to devote time and resources to the country side when the majority of the people voting him into power are in the city, or send resources to on half of the country when the other half has more people to vote for him.

Equally, declaring each area is equal regardless of population is an issue. If three areas vote for Party A and one for Party B, but the area for Party B has twice as many people as the others combined, then the majority of people aren't being listened to.

There doesn't seem to be a truly fair way to deal with the issue. Most systems have some kind of compromise - in the UK it's roughly based on population and area, as I understand it, so a city will have several MP's chosen for it but a large swath of countryside will have one, but still more MP's in the North of the Country and Country side than there would be if it was purely population. Looks like America has something similar, although I'd be lying if I said I was terribly familiar.

[Carnivol]

So, since I clearly can't be arsed to read a bunch of nonsense, I've just got one simple question for people to answer;

So what's the deal with people and their damn guns anyway?

[Ununoctium]

So what's the deal with people and their damn guns anyway?

Better question: What's up with socialists/dictators and how they hate freedom?

[alexdz]

So, since I clearly can't be arsed to read a bunch of nonsense, I've just got one simple question for people to answer;

So what's the deal with people and their damn guns anyway?

Ditto. I am cool with guns, if you want to have your collection and take it to a shooting range and hve some fun, that's great. But some people sound like they want to walk around carring a damn .45 like it was a clothing accessory.

[Ununoctium]

Good news for freedom loving individuals everywhere, there is the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act passed in the House of Representatives. It will allow you to use your state's concealed carry license in any state, even if you don't live there.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9081-national-right-to-carry-reciprocity-act-common-sense-legislation

Ditto. I am cool with guns, if you want to have your collection and take it to a shooting range and hve some fun, that's great. But some people sound like they want to walk around carring a damn .45 like it was a clothing accessory.

Just watch this video:

[Wrathborne]

So, since I clearly can't be arsed to read a bunch of nonsense, I've just got one simple question for people to answer;

So what's the deal with people and their damn guns anyway?

Well, some of it is that this is a right thats guaranteed in our Constitution. The right to bear arms, the right to protect yourself. This has always been a big right here in the US, and I believe that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that every citizen had the right to their own personal independence. Meaning if someone wanted to carry a gun at home and do guard duty 24/7, they could and it was perfectly legal. The government local or higher up couldnt do anything.

Now I grew up around guns, swords and knives. My father collects weapons and likes to go shooting,he was also a Sargent in the army and I think thats where he picked up some of his interest. Those are two of his hobbies, and I myself enjoy going shooting every now and then too.

There are folks who say "when you hold a gun, you feel like a real man"...yeah, people like that are scary. I started shooting when I was about 10-11 or so and the first thing my father taught me was that 'A gun is not a toy. You never point it at anyone, ever." I learned gun safety and how to use different firearms and really do have fun shooting, but I only shoot with my father.

Now I grew up around guns and weapons so I don't see them as dangerous on their own, a weapon by itself isn't anything unless its being held by someone. Depending on whose holding a weapon is cause for concern.

Really though I've always believed that there are always really violent people out there and that if you took away their guns...They've use baseball bats, take away their baseball bats and they'll use knives, take away their knives and they'll find something else to use as a weapon.

Its people like this that are the real problem, and it always has been.

[Carnivol]

Me - again! (This thread is stupid)

Still don't see the big deal. (And still can't be arsed to read this entire thread of silly nonsense.)

As for people displaying violent behavior; sure, they can resort to baseballs bats, knives, etc., but I'd say you've already minimized the amount of damage they can do by limiting them to whatever they can use to wack someone over their heads. Don't really see anyone going on a killing spree of 69 people with a crowbar. Firearms really are a terrible weapon in most people's hands. Collatoral Damage - HERE WE GO!

Anyone with half-a-brain who really and desperately wants to shoot someone will try to get ahold of a firearm one way or another. Sure. But at least only those with some ticking clockwork are the only ones who'll be able to do so (and they'll have to jump through hoops and usually end up leaving a pretty big trail that "the law" can/should pick up on even before they'll even get to the point where they shoot somebody.)

Really can't be arsed to put myself into the whole fine prints of this and that when it comes to certain things, but if the general idea is to get a country to adapt to a similar set of laws for posession and use of firearms as that of many European countries, I honestly don't see the big deal. Unless you, yourself, feel the urge to shoot somebody some day and you feel this is somehow robbing you of that very opportunity (in which case; these changes are thusly and appropriately taken to ensure our safety and protect us from people like YOU - you know, the type of people who basically have this absurd urge/need/craving for carrying firearms like it was their friggin cellphone or wallet.)

As for the whole constitution guarantees bla bla bla... I dunno why, but I feel somewhat worried everytime I hear about the whole "Freedom this, freedom that!" (with fingers pointing towards what the constitution "guaranteed" them). It's really not much different from the overly religious zealots who're pointing at hundreds, if not thousands, of years worth of old texts about what thou shall and shall not do and when and where to condemn people for whatever inane reason that doesn't really affect you in any mentionworthy way. Get with the times. I suppose.

[I_Am_Nemesis]

ok, i might have got the wrong end of the stick here but in America you can carry around concealed weapons providing you have a licence to do so? wow thats pretty insane, i knew they were allowed to have them in their house but to carry around the streets? bit dangerous isnt it? no wonder gun crime is so high over there.

[Carnivol]

Fascinating. Isn't it?

[Wrathborne]

As for the whole constitution guarantees bla bla bla... I dunno why, but I feel somewhat worried everytime I hear about the whole "Freedom this, freedom that!" (with fingers pointing towards what the constitution "guaranteed" them).

Of course you feel strange about the US constitution, you live in another country. Different countries have different rules, laws, etc some make sense, some don't, some seem strange, and some are just there.

It's really not much different from the overly religious zealots who're pointing at hundreds, if not thousands, of years worth of old texts about what thou shall and shall not do and when and where to condemn people for whatever inane reason that doesn't really affect you in any mentionworthy way.

Dude, its quite different than that. These are the basic individual rights in the US, and the problem it all comes down to is that government likes to put limits on the rights of its citizens in order for the government as a whole to get more power.

Its not like insane psycho Christians fighting of religious doctrines, or against homosexuals and stupid shit like that, Its the government trying to lean more on its citizens for its own perverse pleasures. This shit happens to everyone in every country.

The reason we're more vocal about it here isn't just because we know its wrong, but it was one of the fundamental rules on our countries constitution. We're taught that we have these rights and we exercise them regularly, and when the government comes in and says "You cant have, not yours", we say generally push them back. The more power government has the more the try to get.

I've been seeing more and more folks on line pointing the finger at my country and laughing and sneering, and while that is depressing...Those opinions have always been there, they always will be.

What pisses me off the most is when everyone is viewed as the same and not as individuals. Just because I'm American doesn't mean I like to get drunk, watch loud shitty action films, talk about how the rest of the world is wrong and America is the best. That's a fallacy that I keep seeing more of popping up online.

In the end the real problem is that America has been given lots of privileged and freedoms that other countries don't have, little by little over the decades the government has been trying to take away some of these rights. That's not something that any government should be trying to do, especially one that's built on the idea of the individual being able to do anything(Yeah its not 100% true, but there is enough truth behind it to use it as an example)

Every country is different, no matter how similar we are. That isn't a bad thing is it?

[Darkmoon]

I've always wondered - the constitution grantees the right to bear arms. Fine, dandy. It's one of the things America is built on, and until America as a nation collapses, it's there to stay. Does 'arms' have to include 'firearms'? Does it specifically say you guys get guns? Because, clearly, it's perfectly constitutional to limit which weapons people can own, and who can own them. People aren't allowed even certain guns, and certain types of ammo, let alone the obscene military hardware such as grenade launchers or RPG's. So, in theory at least, it should be possible to either ban guns or limit them to a small group of people who really need them and train for there use with due diligence. Not that it will happen, of course, as I understand it guns make a fair hunk of change, but is it legally possible?

[Ununoctium]

ok, i might have got the wrong end of the stick here but in America you can carry around concealed weapons providing you have a licence to do so? wow thats pretty insane, i knew they were allowed to have them in their house but to carry around the streets? bit dangerous isnt it? no wonder gun crime is so high over there.

States that have concealed carry have vastly lower crime and crime rates than states that don't. Also, we're allowed to open carry in most states without a permit. Problem, terrorists?

[Wrathborne]

I've always wondered - the constitution grantees the right to bear arms. Fine, dandy. It's one of the things America is built on, and until America as a nation collapses, it's there to stay. Does 'arms' have to include 'firearms'? Does it specifically say you guys get guns? Because, clearly, it's perfectly constitutional to limit which weapons people can own, and who can own them. People aren't allowed even certain guns, and certain types of ammo, let alone the obscene military hardware such as grenade launchers or RPG's. So, in theory at least, it should be possible to either ban guns or limit them to a small group of people who really need them and train for there use with due diligence. Not that it will happen, of course, as I understand it guns make a fair hunk of change, but is it legally possible?

Actually..because it says 'arms' and not 'fire arms' there are lots of groups who try and use that argument against the second amendment. 'Arms' meaning weapons is one way to look at it, but a gun is a weapon so it still fits the definition, but it doesn't specifically say we get guns but 'arms'. Funny how almost 300 year old Legalese still holds up,eh?

As for limiting gun use...the concealed weapon carrying card isn't something that's just handed out for free people do have to get some proper weapons training now I believe, the other limits are that ex-cons aren't allowed to own a gun(doesn't stop them from getting one all the time, but determination seems to pay off) and neither are people who have certain mental illnesses.

I don't think it';d be legally possible to actually limit guns more so now, other than maybe increase restrictions on who can own and carry. Here are the gun laws for where I live in the US. every state has some variation of these laws, have a look if you'd like.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/

The sad thing is that you heard about stupid people doing stupid things with guns a lot,and for every idiot there are at least a dozen or so more people who own a gun and don't cause a problem, never shoot themselves in the foot, and just quietly live their lives.

[Wrathborne]

States that have concealed carry have vastly lower crime and crime rates than states that don't. Also, we're allowed to open carry in most states without a permit. Problem, terrorists?

...dude, no. Yes Nemesis was being a little provocative, but no.

[Ununoctium]

Actually..because it says 'arms' and not 'fire arms' there are lots of groups who try and use that argument against the second amendment. 'Arms' meaning weapons is one way to look at it, but a gun is a weapon so it still fits the definition, but it doesn't specifically say we get guns but 'arms'. Funny how almost 300 year old Legalese still holds up,eh?

As for limiting gun use...the concealed weapon carrying card isn't something that's just handed out for free people do have to get some proper weapons training now I believe, the other limits are that ex-cons aren't allowed to own a gun(doesn't stop them from getting one all the time, but determination seems to pay off) and neither are people who have certain mental illnesses.

I don't think it';d be legally possible to actually limit guns more so now, other than maybe increase restrictions on who can own and carry. Here are the gun laws for where I live in the US. every state has some variation of these laws, have a look if you'd like.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/

The sad thing is that you heard about stupid people doing stupid things with guns a lot,and for every idiot there are at least a dozen or so more people who own a gun and don't cause a problem, never shoot themselves in the foot, and just quietly live their lives.

Indeed, you hear about the one moron who did something stupid with a gun once, but you don't hear about the good gun owners. For every 1 dumbass with a gun, there are 5000 good and responsible gun owners.