The Political Thread

[Eric Plumrose]

Finally as well although no one likes hearing this, that applies to this discussion.  We were each raised (though perhaps some hatched) and shaped by our families, our community and our national standards.  That goes back to again, responsibility in raising our own and responsibility for community.  So really us (the barbarian savages) and you folks from the UK are speaking totally different languages from totally different perspectives... Besides the fact the conversation is difficult with the British not speaking English, by not having the same values and viewpoints raised so differently, it makes finding a mutual resolution difficult at best.

Outside perspective . . . bad.

[Tjm86]

The suggestion to arm teachers is an extension of the belief that ordinary citizens are untrustworthy but government employees are not. This is, to my mind, a problem.
...
If the idea is to bar violent or unstable people from owning weapons then it must extend to all violent or unstable people, irrespective of whether they work for government or not.

Speaking as a teacher with a mental health problem, the idea of having a firearm fills me with dread.  In fact, as an ex-serviceman who was taken off live armed duty, I seriously question the sanity of such an approach.  This is one of those occasions when Sharky and I are completely on the same wavelength.  That the president of the United States thinks this is a sensible idea and moreover that no one could convince him otherwise is actually quite disturbing.

[Big_Dave]

The US Murder rate per million people is 4 times greater than the UK

The US Murder rate per million people is 3 times greater than Canada

The US Murder rate per million people is 4 times greater than Australia

1 in every 5 US murders are gun related

tea
mapel syrup
& vegemite
must be good for mental health & community spirit

[Tjm86]

So really us (the barbarian savages) and you folks from the UK are speaking totally different languages from totally different perspectives... Besides the fact the conversation is difficult with the British not speaking English, by not having the same values and viewpoints raised so differently, it makes finding a mutual resolution difficult at best.

This is a very accurate point.  National cultural values really do shape this.  I would also agree with the idea that this is a 'linguistic' problem.  The mistake is, I would suggest, to think that this decries the validity of any points being raised.  Self deprecation aside (barbarian savages) there is a significant difference in worldview.  We 'cultural imperialists' could do with being brought down a peg or two, as could you 'financial imperialists'.  Growth comes from stepping outside of these viewpoints and embracing alternatives.  Yours are most certainly welcome here.  In fact, Tooth is built on that tradition.

[JOE SOAP]

Secondly, the 2nd Amendment is not just about defending against other nations, or other individuals.  It is most importantly about defending against your own government if they decide that the constitution can be scrapped and they can just take charge (The Declaration of Independence spells it out much better than I ever could... Simply replace Great Britain with "the U.S. Government").

Even taking the archaic 2nd Amendment as it is, it's this part: A well regulated Militia that seems to be completely disregarded. I don't think corporate weapons manufacturers selling assault rifles and ammunition to every individually licensed Tom, Dick & Harriet as part of their weekly big-shop at Wal-Mart was really part of James Madison's intention – there's nothing regulated about it: it's just another way for arms-dealers to make money at the expense of the public's well-being.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[TordelBack]

It's also worth remembering that the Bill of Rights was written at the same time the Revolutionary Army was being formed in France, the rapid replacement of the formal ancien regime army with an eventual 1.5 million sans-cullottes, citizen soldiers. The notion that a new Republic could be defended against its monarchist neighbours by the sheer mass of its armed citizens was very much in fashion.  It's likely that the 2nd Amendment envisaged a similar formalisation of 'well-regulated' militia as the contemporary Reglement of 1791.

How this pre-Napoleonic pragmatism translates to disaffected boys buying military-grade weapons in a 21st C mall I have no idea.

[JOE SOAP]

How this pre-Napoleonic pragmatism translates to disaffected boys buying military-grade weapons in a 21st C mall I have no idea.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense in socially atomised suburbs built around car access to strip-malls. The 'old-time' community structure is just not there.

[K2]

Herein is exactly what I meant about two different societies speaking two different languages and not understanding the others viewpoint.   You all keep seeing "Well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights... Though Red Dawn makes for a fun movie, fact of the matter is that come that point something went terribly wrong with our well equipped and trained military.

As I stated 2-pages back, Americans see this:

Secondly, the 2nd Amendment is not just about defending against other nations, or other individuals.  It is most importantly about defending against your own government if they decide that the constitution can be scrapped and they can just take charge (The Declaration of Independence spells it out much better than I ever could... Simply replace Great Britain with "the U.S. Government").

Seriously, the U.S. DoI is an amazing document to read, words well worth everyone in the world taking to heart... However, to save you the trouble of looking it up, I'll just paste the passage here:

-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--


Americans view their right to bear arms first and foremost to state "we have the right to defend ourselves and our nation with military equivalent force..."  BUT also, MOST importantly, that we have the right to not be forced into a situation... BY OUR government, wherein we cannot defend ourselves from it and take back the government and return it to the people.


Forget Trump... The guy is as whacky and self serving as they come, I'm still stewing over that.  Forget the NRA... Though they started with good intentions for some time now they have used firearms as their soapbox to control politicians (the same ones that the nation may one day need to be taken back from).

It is an Americans God given right, as all peoples of the world, to not be oppressed by their own government.  Why I'm explaining this I don't know in that: We hold these truths to be self-evident...

K2

[K2]

Oh and for the record, the reason I came to this forum to gather information to write a fictional story, is about the coming of the Judges because of abuses of a president known as the "Mad Clown" which sent the world into a spiral flush... and it's about to be taken back... The government that is.

Oddly, my story set in 2029, regarding events of 2019-2029, isn't so much about the 2029 president but the one before 2019/2020.

Kooky, huh?

K2

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Americans view their right to bear arms first and foremost to state "we have the right to defend ourselves and our nation with military equivalent force..."  BUT also, MOST importantly, that we have the right to not be forced into a situation... BY OUR government, wherein we cannot defend ourselves from it and take back the government and return it to the people.

I think I understand your sentiment, but "military equivalent force"? Like the US military? That military with the obscene budget? That military that can deploy drones and minimize the risk to its own personnel? That military with the nukes?

That may sound a bit hyperbolic, as does this:

If the US government went full Authoritarian, Facist dictatorship, it would have to be backed (if not initiated) by the US military industrial complex.

And we'd all be fucked. No well organized militia would be able to do anything about it. Our only hope would be China throwing enough bodies at the problem.

In spite of all that, I don't think the US's problem is guns. There are deeper cultural and societal issues that are highlighted when guns are thrown into the mix.

Last time this came up I argued that no one needs an AR-15, but you know what? Fucking nobody gets killed by AR-15s. The people that own them tend to be pretty law abiding and sensible.

Handguns on the other hand, kill fucking hundreds of thousands in the states. A depressingly high percentage of those deaths list the shooter and the victim as the same person.

Every time I visit the states, I enjoy going to a shooting range, shouldering my mate Johnny's shotgun, squeezing the trigger and making it go FUCKING KABOOM!

I get the appeal of firearms. I'm a responsible law-abiding adult and I should be allowed to enjoy them.

But I can't where I live, because a bunch of kids got shot in Dunblane. I can live with that. I can accept that I don't get to play with guns because of dead children.

I guess I just hate freedom

[JOE SOAP]

Herein is exactly what I meant about two different societies speaking two different languages and not understanding the others viewpoint.   You all keep seeing "Well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights... Though Red Dawn makes for a fun movie, fact of the matter is that come that point something went terribly wrong with our well equipped and trained military.

Americans view their right to bear arms first and foremost to state "we have the right to defend ourselves and our nation with military equivalent force..."  BUT also, MOST importantly, that we have the right to not be forced into a situation... BY OUR government, wherein we cannot defend ourselves from it and take back the government and return it to the people.

I think I can safely say a lot of us here all ready know the particular details/contents and intentions of the referred to historical documents and how they've been interpreted. I mean, they're quite well known, held up as being significant, and Americans have never been shy about proselytising how great they are to the world and what it all means to them - anecdotally, as you know, the Declaration of Independence is of course a significant story point in a certain comic about a future lawman so even on that level we're aware of what it's supposed to mean.

There's also been plenty of high profile documentaries, TV dramas, news reports, articles etc. representing all sides over the years that anyone interested would need to be willfully ignorant not to be aware so - we get it - and as countries with our own centuries of armed and bloody rebellions, civil-wars, their lasting consequences, and what the violent reality of such events really means, we know that these things don't always work out so well.

Having said all that, in the modern context of a situation that now seems to be turning into an arms-race between a people and their government - who will always have the bigger guns than what they allow to be sold at street level - and that maybe after the rather loud warning of several thousand incidents of its own offspring/future murdering themselves/itself with the pervasive overflow of handguns, the US as a country may need to reflect upon where it's going: to re-examine the myths it has been built upon and that maybe the culture and the incongruent clash with its capitalist ambitions are escalating the problem towards more random chaotic conflicts rather than trying to thoughtfully live up to some imagined ideal.

Even if the apocalyptic scenario of a tyrannical government actually occurred, on just a civilian level I can't imagine the 'rebellion' of such a fragmented society would be anything other than an all out free-for-all of isolationist factions and individuals deprived of their right to the 'pursuit of happiness' or has it now been reduced to just 'right to happiness' for some? It's in that bubbling brew the spectre of true fascism may well arise.

Ironically, America doesn't have a regulated militia of monastic, idealistic lawfolk sworn to protect the public who can step in on behalf of the angry mob.

[Modern Panther]

If the US government believed that american gun owners would've in anyway effective in removing them from power, they wouldn't waste so much of their dignity on preserving the rights of american gun owners.  The idea that the slave owners who wrote and signed the constitution, and were eager for a bunch of people to be armed with muskets in case a King showed up and demanded they pay taxes and take their farms, is in any way comparible with the murder devices of the 21st century is laughable. Is it extendrs to an AR 15, why no surface to air missiles, or weaponized anthrax? The only reason anyone needs a gun is to hunt, to kill people, and because firing a gun makes them feel big and important.

[CalHab]

I see Jeremy Corbyn may be coming round to the idea that making Labour a party of opposition, rather than protest, may be a successful strategy. Bit late, and a shame that he rebuffed the Greens and SNP when they suggested it to him last year. Anyway, hope the man shows at a bit of sense:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/22/jeremy-corbyn-could-back-remaining-in-eu-customs-union

[The Legendary Shark]

From Twitter:

I never said "give teachers guns" like was
stated on Fake News @CNN & @NBC.
What I said was to look at the possibility
of giving "concealed guns to gun adept
teachers with military or special training
experience - only the best. 20% of
teachers, a lot, would now be able to
12:26 PM - Feb 22, 2018
76.4K 45.4K people are talking
about this

....immediately fire back if a savage sicko
came to a school with bad intentions.
Highly trained teachers would also serve
as a deterrent to the cowards that do
this. Far more assets at much less cost
than guards. A "gun free" school is a
magnet for bad people. ATTACKS WOULD
END!
12:40 PM - Feb 22, 2018
86.7K 49.4K people are talking
about this

....History shows that a school shooting lasts, on average, 3 minutes. It takes police & first responders approximately 5 to 8 minutes to get to site of crime. Highly trained, gun adept, teachers/ coaches would solve the problem
instantly, before police arrive. GREAT DETERRENT!
12:54 PM - Feb 22, 2018
106K 56.3K people are talking
about this


I post this only to show that Trump's argument seems to be slightly more nuanced than the MSM's simplistic "arm all the teachers" meme. Of course, this might just be Trump back-pedalling or it might be another example of the depths to which the MSM has sunk. Either way, I'm not defending Trump or his ideas. As you know, I don't believe in any political leaders. It should be up to individual communities to decide how best to protect their schools and government can only ever come up with "one size fits all" policies. It might be feasible for some schools in violent neighbourhoods to employ armed protectors (be they trained staff, police or private security) but, I suspect, the majority of schools just don't need it. In this latter case, the only thing this idea would do is bring guns, and their side-effects, into hitherto gun-free schools. Some "sickos" might even regard it as a challenge, making an armed school not safer but more dangerous.

[Professor Bear]

"We need guns to defend against tyranny" is kind of predicated on the idea that gun nutters would actually fight back against tyranny rather than embrace it - a lot of them seem quite happy with a Russian stooge in the White House.