Answer me this.

[whyBish]

Go down swinging, like Frodo, like Aragorn before the Black Gate.  Heroic stuff, eh?  Who wants to grovel with their last breath?  Not I.

Occhi
[right][snapback]104460[/snapback][/right]

Well I could understand that sentiment if you were arguing for having guns to ensure your rights to euthanasia :huh: , but it doesn't lend any support to the arguement that guns ensure your rights to democracy.

[Occhidiangela]

Considering:
- we spend 'only' 1% of GDP on defence forces source
- the army is now taking in asthmatics and overweight recruits
- politcians get voted out every three years
- we have a more democratic system that requirese onsensus between multiple parties to get laws enacted (as opposed to the U.S. dictatorship system)
- we are easily able to head elsewhere (e.g. if the govt. started increasing tax to fund a military, we could reduce its tax base by emigrating... who wants to rule a country that has no citizens to earn tax for you?)
... I think we have more chance of being invaded  (don't tell George about the large finds of offshore oil here recently  :P  ) than the govt. to go awol.
[right][snapback]104462[/snapback][/right]

1. NZ isn't a Power. Do you understand scaling? I am sure you do, you are in programming.
2. You are clueless about the nature of the American political process if you use the word dictatorship. Get a clue. What you are seeing at present is the unusual case of both Houses of Congress, and the White House, being in the hands of the same party. If you look at Reagan's era, or Clinton's era, you see a different dynamic since Congress and the President were continually at odds. See also Wilson. The system hasn't changed much since his day.

The balance of power is more or less evident depending on the mix. What you also aren't seeing is the leaking the Republican party is experiencing, but that won't manifest itself to the world at large until the 2006 election cycle.

If it looks like mob rule to you, well, mob rule is a feature of democracy, and can be a feature of constitutional republics if one party gets the preponderance of the votes. Enter the Judicial branch, to mitigate the process, which they do. ;)

Enter the Governors. At present, the are in the lead, but Virginia just changed hands, and I suspect a few others will in 2006.

Consider the importance of Governors and State legislatures: the Governors of Texas and California both have more people, each has IIRC a bit more land, and a larger economy than your nation. See, again, scaling. I predict Perry falls in Texas, 2006. NOt sure what the Governator will do. PS: some states have a recall process, which is how Governor Davis got fired.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

:blush: :blush:

Well I could understand that sentiment if you were arguing for having guns to ensure your rights to euthanasia :huh: , but it doesn't lend any support to the arguement that guns ensure your rights to democracy.
[right][snapback]104467[/snapback][/right]

Do you understand the iconic place rebellion has in this culture?

Occhi

Edit: Uh, that was iconic, not "icnonic." :blush: :blush: :blush:

[Zarathustra]

I was once told by a physics professor that vibrating air molecules cannot be described as "sound" or "noise" until they come into contact with something that can relay an auditory sensation (ie. eardrums or a microphone).  The way it was described to me was that a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it produces vibrating air molecules, but if someone is around to hear it it produces sound.

Way off base or just a matter of semantics?
[right][snapback]104325[/snapback][/right]

This sounds (*rimshot*) like conflicting definitions of sound. The answer relies on whether one considers sound to be the vibrations or the perception of said vibrations.

All mention of a metaphysical being aside, of course.

[jahcs]

Fine, then light isn't light until you have a sensory body to recieve it.

But that's ok - we all just talk to see our lips move, it isn't really sound. ;)

[Doc]

Do you understand the icnonic place rebellion has in this culture? 

Occhi
[right][snapback]104489[/snapback][/right]

Occhi... It has been my experience in dealing with people from other nations that they don't understand the value of rebelion in our culture, or the need to cling tightly to those tools of rebelion.

Americans have a deeply rooted sense of defiance. Our guns are one of many outward displays of our inner feelings. We are indoctrinated, er, well, the new generations might not be, but us older generations, we were indoctrinated practically from birth that patriotism and firearms go hand in hand, and you can not have one with out the other. It is every good citizen's duty to be proficient in firearms. Fathers taught their boys to shoot. How to hunt and fish. How to be "American" and filled little minds with visions of Daniel Boone and Davy Crocket. Of Paul Revere and his midnight ride. All these things. Indoctrinated with the romance and patriotism, the American Spirit that a gun represents.

And with the collapse of the family structure, and the lack of fathers, and full families, the rise of single mothers and fathers, broken homes, these values, these indoctrinations are lacking. Failing. Instead of the romance, and history, kids are learning about guns from the crack dealer down the street. All of the wrong lessons about guns are being taught. It sickens me.

My Goddaughter is getting it. From me, and her grandfather. She started preschool... And with it, arms training. She is quite good with a 22 revolver. She knows how to pull the gun apart, clean it, proper safety, where to point it, where not to point it, how to load it, and more importantly, how to shoot. And she is a damn good shot. She can't hit bullseyes yet, but she no longer misses the tree or the paper any more. She aint gunshy.

Infact, the little scamp says she doesn't like her little popgun any more... She wants one of my big revolvers. :wacko: Or one of grampa's pistols. (He likes clip fed pistols... He's a bit of a flake.)

Some day soon I am going to let her fire one of my 357s. I'll hold it with her and protect her from recoil. As soon as she can hold up one of them and hold it steady, she'll be a big enough girl to fire them all by her self.

I am gushing with pride right now. What a strange feeling. And I am feeling oddly patriotic. :)

[SwissMercenary]

Occhi... It has been my experience in dealing with people from other nations that they don't understand the value of rebelion in our culture, or the need to cling tightly to those tools of rebelion.
[right][snapback]104525[/snapback][/right]

That's pretty much why I've come to the conclusion that debating the subject of firearm control on enemy, I mean, American soil, is never going to be a very productive debate. Cultural differences. Much rather talk about why we don't need them *here*. I hope that we can now see why our opinions and ideas apply to the places where each of us lives.

[Occhidiangela]

I've come to the conclusion that debating the subject of firearm control on enemy, I mean, American soil, is never going to be a very productive debate. Cultural differences.
[right][snapback]104534[/snapback][/right]

*claps*

Occhi

[Guest]

.  I read somewhere that Canada has a higher per capita gun ownership rate than the US.
[right][snapback]104334[/snapback][/right]

Id be curious to see that. Im not saying its wrong, but I am surprised.

[Guest]

I respectfully disagree.  I am a citizen.  My voice is heard - possibly all too often, if you were to ask my elected representatives.    :)  My lack of guns has made absolutely no difference to my ability to have my voice heard and my opinions solicited by those elected to do the bidding of the people.

[right][snapback]104347[/snapback][/right]

Thats a bit naive with respect to what Doc was saying. When freedom is lost its often abrupt and follows a period of seemingly secure personal rights.

Im not suggesting that Canada is about to go fascist though, just that your reasoning isnt secure.

[Guest]

There was a gun round up in some of the countries the Nazies invaded however. They used the invaded countries gun registration laws to their favor.

[Artega]

Sure, I've got some nice racial based jokes too  :huh:
[right][snapback]104327[/snapback][/right]

So share them! You share yours, I'll share mine, and everyone will have a good chuckle.

People need to learn that life is way too damn short to go through it pissed off because someone said or did something that might possibly offend someone at some point because it conflicts with something that they might or might not believe in. If you can't find a little bit of humor (no matter how sadistic or off-color) in everything, why bother living at all?

[Artega]

I'm moving to Canada if it's like that for half a year. Perfect weather :)

[Guest]

"Few"?

[Doc]

There was a gun round up in some of the countries the Nazies invaded however. They used the invaded countries gun registration laws to their favor.
[right][snapback]104561[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, that is probably what I was thinking about right there.

I remembered something... But not the exact details.

[SwissMercenary]

Thats a bit naive with respect to what Doc was saying. When freedom is lost its often abrupt and follows a period of seemingly secure personal rights.

Well, realistically, how could that be accomplished, in the current political climate? In regards to Saddam, Hitler, and the like, you could argue that the 'switch' was pulled more or less overnight, but there were years of very obvious warning signs leading up to it.

On a somewhat-related note, what do the Americans here think of this?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/14/121020/253

I can't say I'm familiar with ACLU, or with their reputation (Outside from a quick wikipedia glance). Is this the typical bag-of-gas tripe that gets spouted by mouthpieces all along the political specturm, or is it more substantial?

And, if it is, what's going to be the deal with it. (I'm recalling your insights into the 21st century war on terrorism, Occhi.)

[DeeBye]

Id be curious to see that. Im not saying its wrong, but I am surprised.
[right][snapback]104558[/snapback][/right]

I tried finding an unbiased source for that information, but due to the nature of the gun control debate it was pretty much impossible. The only things I found that were even remotely unbiased stated that Canada is very close to the US when it comes to gun ownersip per capita. Sometimes the figures were higher, and sometimes they were lower. One thing that almost every article did agree on was that Canada has one of the highest gun ownership per capita rates in the world.

So there are lots of guns in Canada, but we just don't talk about them much. Like I stated before - much of Canada is very rural and shotguns and rifles are used for protection from wildlife. Wolves and bears are a very real danger for a significant portion of the country. There are also vast pristine hunting grounds for sportsmen.

I suppose the difference comes down to owning guns for self-defense against other people. I don't have any hard figures on this one, but it's significantly less common to own a gun for urban self-defense in Canada than in the US.

[kandrathe]

...
I can't say I'm familiar with ACLU, or with their reputation (Outside from a quick wikipedia glance). Is this the typical bag-of-gas tripe that gets spouted by mouthpieces all along the political specturm, or is it more substantial?

And, if it is, what's going to be the deal with it. (I'm recalling your insights into the 21st century war on terrorism, Occhi.)
[right][snapback]104600[/snapback][/right]

I heard a more balanced report on this issue on my drive home from work today. The FBI is investigating leads on individuals that brought them to the Merton center, not blanketly investigating the Merton center or political activities. I know from the FBI investigations of my aquaintences during my university days that anyone who makes a threat (even veiled, even joking, even sarcastic) against certain high political figures will be investigated abrasively. They have zero sense of humor, nor can they afford to allow any potential threat to pass without investigation.

[DeeBye]

I know from the FBI investigations of my aquaintences during my university days that anyone who makes a threat (even veiled, even joking, even sarcastic) against certain high political figures will be investigated abrasively.
[right][snapback]104619[/snapback][/right]

I'm going to kill George Bush next weekend with a lead pipe in the library.

[Doc]

I'm going to kill George Bush next weekend with a lead pipe in the library.
[right][snapback]104621[/snapback][/right]

And frame that arrogant bastard Colonel Mustard I take it.