Gun Control

[Draitex]

Since you're at least COMMONLY versed in US gun legislation (or at least, to the casual observer, that's how it seems), what gun laws would you propose we change? Should we only change gun laws at the state level? At the city level? Or should we cast a blanket of laws that apply to everyone from the 18 y/o living in Harlem to the 45 y/o Appalachian hunter to the 60 y/o war veteran in Florida?

Sorry for the double post but i dunno how to multi quote.

I think with the proper license you should be allowed to buy most guns, but this would be a license that needs to be approved, by police and other instances (for example some kind of shooting range that gives a clear go that you can infact handle weaponry along with some kind of evaluation that gives atleast greenlight that you are good to own a weapon, Like in sweden for us that is done when obtaining the hunting license or weapon license through the millitary.)

But I say outlaw open carry, and conceal carry out in the open, and outlaw Assault rifles unless you have fulfilled all the pre requsites to own said fire arm, (like what i previously said) such as background checks, psychiatric evaluation, if you are able to handle a gun with all the safety precautuions etc etc, ownership of weapons in my opinion should be a privilege and not a right.

 

[GonZo_626]

I swore once to you, did not mean to come across like a dick.

Listen. I explained i should have been clearer about the context he used it in, when it comes to your gun laws, not guns in general, I said so in my second post for that I aplogize, but you bashed me twice for it even though i explained what i meant.

I never said we don't need guns, but you Americans have Assault Rifles and guns that should absolutley not be allowed for personal ownership in my opinion, I think handguns even is overdoing it, Hunting rifles and hunting weaponry is enough, and you should have the proper license for it if you want to have one at home.

I am not a socialist, I don't even vote cause i think voting is an illusion of choice and it looks boring, And i am not right or left, I think left are bigger idiots than rights tbh more often than not. and don't shit talk my country, I did not shittalk america, only the gun laws.

The fuck is bear spray? some kind of pepperspray for bears?, If a bear gets close enough for you to use it you'll be ripped to shredds if the bear is out to kill you.

If the current laws are not enforced that means there is not enough control wouldn't you say?
It's not about the guns themselves, but rather the ''firepower'' of some of the guns and the easy access to it.

what I say you should do is that you would take away all the assault rifles, I personally think guns are fun to use, but Assault rifles and stuff like that, well that's a bit too much to be available in gun stores, hunting rifles etc, I totally get that.

I have used millitary weaponry inside the millitary, and I have used hunting weapons, And I do own a compound bow(Archery is great fun!)

I believe, that Swedish gun laws are too strict, cause I want to have a crossbow but cant, And I believe americas gunlaws are too loose cause of the weaponry avaliable and the easy accessing to said guns.

Ok then, back to a good discussion.

Well I am not American either I am Canadian. I have seen the Jim Jefferies comedy skit on gun control and thought he was a twit after it. Next is the perception you seem to have of American gun laws. It is wrong mostly, the most commonly referred to AR-15 as a assault rifle is wrong. Going by the definition of an assault rifle "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine." most of the rifles that are called assault rifles do not contain selective fire (full auto or burst fire), they are a sporting rifle so semi auto. Yes some people in the US can own an actual assault rifle but they are few and far between, and from what my research has shown mostly firearms business owners. It is really expensive to legally own a full auto, like $20,000 kinda expensive, and that does not include the mass amount of ammo one of these would go through (like $15 a minute haha).

Most of these "assault rifles", are actually less powerful then your average hunting rifle and would be relegated to hog or coyote hunting. An AR-15 uses a 5.56x45 or .223 round. This is pretty much just a really suped up .22 rimfire round haha. I don't know about you but the smallest rifles I see in normal use are in the .30 cal range (.308, 300 win mag, 7mm) now an AK-47 would use a similar round as the 7.62 x 39 is in the .30 cal family but is still smaller than your average hunting round (I would go for deer but not moose with it). So now we have a semi-auto sporting rifle that is either a really suped up .22 in center fire, or a semi-auto sporting rifle that has a small hunting round in it.

Now these sporting rifles are called "assault weapons" now in the main stream media in North America since firearms owners kept getting pissed off at the assault rifle thing and we easily made the media look like idiots because of it. The "assault weapon" pretty much refers to a rifle with pistol grip and removable mags in semi-auto. So wanting to have a more ergonomically correct rifle that's action is no different then a hunting rifle (plenty of semi-auto hunting rifles) and fires a smaller round then most hunting rifles. Sorry but the "firepower" that you refer to does not exist. Also these rifles are responsible for like 2-4% of US gun crime, its mostly handguns.

And yes bear spray is exactly what you think, pepper spray for bears, and it seems like a dumbass idea to me too.

As for the US laws, what happens is (and this mostly happens at the federal level from what I understand) they put in for the record check at purchase time, the local authorities respond in the 3 days they have, the state level usually respond in the 3 days, then for the FBI, they get it, it sits in a pile, they open it up and see the date and throw it out as its been 10 days and the guy has already picked up and left the store with the rifle as they only have 3 days to respond.

 

[Operation Wignut]

I never said we don't need guns, but you Americans have Assault Rifles and guns that should absolutley not be allowed for personal ownership in my opinion, I think handguns even is overdoing it, Hunting rifles and hunting weaponry is enough, and you should have the proper license for it if you want to have one at home.

When the Founders of our country made the Constitution, a lot of people (Anti-Federalists) saw problems that we had fought against would not necessarily be corrected with the sole ideas of the Constitution. These people brought forward a "Bill of Rights", which guaranteed, in its points, a check-and-balance system between the Federal, State and Individual levels. What power do laws hold, by themselves? Nothing. The government compels law by force. But what if those laws are tyrannical? The people should have the ready ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. This means that the people should have access to the means to defend as well as attack the government, and defeat it, if done en masse. That is the basis for the Second Amendment, and why it is the most important. As long as the Second Amendment stands, the people are able to resist all other forms of tyrannical control.

I am not a socialist, I don't even vote cause i think voting is an illusion of choice and it looks boring, And i am not right or left, I think left are bigger idiots than rights tbh more often than not. and don't shit talk my country, I did not shittalk america, only the gun laws.

You are condemning our primary legislation in heirarchy, which we have fought to protect for hundreds of years, and while I'm all for civility, there are some lines that Americans draw that you shouldn't cross over.

The fuck is bear spray? some kind of pepperspray for bears?, If a bear gets close enough for you to use it you'll be ripped to shredds if the bear is out to kill you.

You don't know how bear spray works and yet you condemn it? That's bordering on ignorant behavior. Bear spray is used to blind and inflict pain upon an attacking bear. If the bear is in pain and can't see you, how can it "rip you to shreds"?

If the current laws are not enforced that means there is not enough control wouldn't you say?
It's not about the guns themselves, but rather the ''firepower'' of some of the guns and the easy access to it.

If the current laws are not enforced then more legislation would put more laws on the books that would not be enforced. The argument falsifies itself.

what I say you should do is that you would take away all the assault rifles, I personally think guns are fun to use, but Assault rifles and stuff like that, well that's a bit too much to be available in gun stores, hunting rifles etc, I totally get that.

Again, tyrannical power should be overthrown by the people and all that.

I have used millitary weaponry inside the millitary, and I have used hunting weapons, And I do own a compound bow(Archery is great fun!)

You don't need to justify yourself. If someone attacks you on this thread because you haven't used a gun before, that's ignorant on their part, not yours. Everyone should be able to express their opinion.

ON TO THE NEXT POST

Sorry for the double post but i dunno how to multi quote.

I think with the proper license you should be allowed to buy most guns, but this would be a license that needs to be approved, by police and other instances (for example some kind of shooting range that gives a clear go that you can infact handle weaponry along with some kind of evaluation that gives atleast greenlight that you are good to own a weapon, Like in sweden for us that is done when obtaining the hunting license or weapon license through the millitary.)

Some states do have that exact law. Other states (like California) have laws stricter than many other places. We have had an Assault Weapons Ban for years now, all handgun serial numbers and sales are recorded by the state in the Department of Justice's Automated Firearms System and all weapons must be bought through a dealer. No large-capacity magazines are allowed, open carry is not allowed in any major city, and California has a ten day waiting period for all firearm purchases, transfers, and private sales which must be conducted through a federal and state firearm license holder. That is, upon purchase, the purchaser must wait 10 days after the purchase before the firearm is released to the owner. Meanwhile the neighboring state of Arizona has open and concealed carry permits, no assault weapons ban, no firearm registration required, and no background checks AT ALL. The range of gun laws at even a local level are varied and complex because America is so large and populated.

But I say outlaw open carry, and conceal carry out in the open,

Why? What reason is there to outlaw these things?

and outlaw Assault rifles unless you have fulfilled all the pre requsites to own said fire arm, (like what i previously said) such as background checks, psychiatric evaluation, if you are able to handle a gun with all the safety precautuions etc etc,

Which some states already do, with varying degrees of effectiveness. Federal law requires background checks for sales by licensed gun dealers already. New Mexico, Montana and Delaware run mental health checks before purchase. DC, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Ohio all require handgun training.

ownership of weapons in my opinion should be a privilege and not a right.

Which goes against everything the Revolutionaries, Founders and Anti-Federalists fought for. Basic human rights shall be protected, and if the government will not protect them the people shall and must. The ability to protect your own rights is the basis for power of the people.

 

[Izak]

Sorry for the double post but i dunno how to multi quote.

After you're finished responding to a first quote, simply hit the reply button on the next post you want to respond to.

 

[Draitex]

When the Founders of our country made the Constitution, a lot of people (Anti-Federalists) saw problems that we had fought against would not necessarily be corrected with the sole ideas of the Constitution. These people brought forward a "Bill of Rights", which guaranteed, in its points, a check-and-balance system between the Federal, State and Individual levels. What power do laws hold, by themselves? Nothing. The government compels law by force. But what if those laws are tyrannical? The people should have the ready ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. This means that the people should have access to the means to defend as well as attack the government, and defeat it, if done en masse. That is the basis for the Second Amendment, and why it is the most important. As long as the Second Amendment stands, the people are able to resist all other forms of tyrannical control.



You are condemning our primary legislation in heirarchy, which we have fought to protect for hundreds of years, and while I'm all for civility, there are some lines that Americans draw that you shouldn't cross over.



You don't know how bear spray works and yet you condemn it? That's bordering on ignorant behavior. Bear spray is used to blind and inflict pain upon an attacking bear. If the bear is in pain and can't see you, how can it "rip you to shreds"?



If the current laws are not enforced then more legislation would put more laws on the books that would not be enforced. The argument falsifies itself.



Again, tyrannical power should be overthrown by the people and all that.



You don't need to justify yourself. If someone attacks you on this thread because you haven't used a gun before, that's ignorant on their part, not yours. Everyone should be able to express their opinion.

ON TO THE NEXT POST



Some states do have that exact law. Other states (like California) have laws stricter than many other places. We have had an Assault Weapons Ban for years now, all handgun serial numbers and sales are recorded by the state in the Department of Justice's Automated Firearms System and all weapons must be bought through a dealer. No large-capacity magazines are allowed, open carry is not allowed in any major city, and California has a ten day waiting period for all firearm purchases, transfers, and private sales which must be conducted through a federal and state firearm license holder. That is, upon purchase, the purchaser must wait 10 days after the purchase before the firearm is released to the owner. Meanwhile the neighboring state of Arizona has open and concealed carry permits, no assault weapons ban, no firearm registration required, and no background checks AT ALL. The range of gun laws at even a local level are varied and complex because America is so large and populated.



Why? What reason is there to outlaw these things?



Which some states already do, with varying degrees of effectiveness. Federal law requires background checks for sales by licensed gun dealers already. New Mexico, Montana and Delaware run mental health checks before purchase. DC, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Ohio all require handgun training.


Which goes against everything the Revolutionaries, Founders and Anti-Federalists fought for. Basic human rights shall be protected, and if the government will not protect them the people shall and must. The ability to protect your own rights is the basis for power of the people.

I know about that hwole if the government becomes tyrannical etc, but I really doubt that would happen, even so if many of these laws are passed, I feel certain many different parties and instances of government and even millitary would object to this which would put that law away,...and to pass a law forcefully, and for it to be followed, then you'd either need to create a police state, or the people following it on their own free will, otherwise, with weapons or not, there would be an uprising, which as a leader you'd want to avoid so passing a severly tyranical law would be beyond stupid from the leaders part if i give my own opinion on the matter.

I think they should be outlaw simply because carrying an automatic rifle or something like a concealed weapon could end up in shootings, I am not saying all people are likley to do so, but if you can do it, someone might do it, that's the rule of thumb i follow

About Bearspray, I believe, that the pain and blindness while possible it's effective would not stop a furious momma bear charging at you, In sweden we only have brown bears, and we say you should hit it on the nose, but if the bear is already charging at you, I think you're done for to be honest, unless you shoot it, and even then it's not sure, many bears survive the first bullet if it's not a perfect hit. A bear pack a mean punch and they are full of endurance to most pain, I know of a hunter who got 2 of his dogs killed due to a bear charging at him while he shot at it. (granted the hunter shot first and only wounded the bear, so i blame the hunter, but still, if they can take bullets and still keep swinging I think that with enough rage they'd live through the spray)

the states who do that is very good of them, guns are dangerous enough for it to be a valid reason for the background check, mental health and training.

Well I don't know your bill of rights in my head, so i can't say for sure, but has there not been alterations to the original bill of rights? I nelieve it should be a privelige to own firearms, not a right, that is my formal opinion, but you might disagree, the same way I disagree to certain things about your gun laws.

Ok then, back to a good discussion.

Well I am not American either I am Canadian. I have seen the Jim Jefferies comedy skit on gun control and thought he was a twit after it. Next is the perception you seem to have of American gun laws. It is wrong mostly, the most commonly referred to AR-15 as a assault rifle is wrong. Going by the definition of an assault rifle "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine." most of the rifles that are called assault rifles do not contain selective fire (full auto or burst fire), they are a sporting rifle so semi auto. Yes some people in the US can own an actual assault rifle but they are few and far between, and from what my research has shown mostly firearms business owners. It is really expensive to legally own a full auto, like $20,000 kinda expensive, and that does not include the mass amount of ammo one of these would go through (like $15 a minute haha).

Most of these "assault rifles", are actually less powerful then your average hunting rifle and would be relegated to hog or coyote hunting. An AR-15 uses a 5.56x45 or .223 round. This is pretty much just a really suped up .22 rimfire round haha. I don't know about you but the smallest rifles I see in normal use are in the .30 cal range (.308, 300 win mag, 7mm) now an AK-47 would use a similar round as the 7.62 x 39 is in the .30 cal family but is still smaller than your average hunting round (I would go for deer but not moose with it). So now we have a semi-auto sporting rifle that is either a really suped up .22 in center fire, or a semi-auto sporting rifle that has a small hunting round in it.

Now these sporting rifles are called "assault weapons" now in the main stream media in North America since firearms owners kept getting pissed off at the assault rifle thing and we easily made the media look like idiots because of it. The "assault weapon" pretty much refers to a rifle with pistol grip and removable mags in semi-auto. So wanting to have a more ergonomically correct rifle that's action is no different then a hunting rifle (plenty of semi-auto hunting rifles) and fires a smaller round then most hunting rifles. Sorry but the "firepower" that you refer to does not exist. Also these rifles are responsible for like 2-4% of US gun crime, its mostly handguns.

And yes bear spray is exactly what you think, pepper spray for bears, and it seems like a dumbass idea to me too.

As for the US laws, what happens is (and this mostly happens at the federal level from what I understand) they put in for the record check at purchase time, the local authorities respond in the 3 days they have, the state level usually respond in the 3 days, then for the FBI, they get it, it sits in a pile, they open it up and see the date and throw it out as its been 10 days and the guy has already picked up and left the store with the rifle as they only have 3 days to respond.

I always thought Assault rifles were automatic and semi automatic carbines, carrying a magazine with many bullets, those are the ones I would outlaw simply because they can fire a lot of bullets all of them very fatal, and they can fire it in at an audience of people which is why i think they are too dangerous to be allowed outside of the millitary, still this is still my opinion.

 

[Operation Wignut]

I know about that hwole if the government becomes tyrannical etc, but I really doubt that would happen,

(re: 1940s Germany)

even so if many of these laws are passed, I feel certain many different parties and instances of government and even millitary would object to this which would put that law away,

We have the Republican party, which is extremely pro-gun rights, to offset people in government that would take away this right, EXCEPT...

...and to pass a law forcefully, and for it to be followed, then you'd either need to create a police state, or the people following it on their own free will,

Well, executive orders can basically do anything, and there's no limiting power on them. If the case so happens that the right amalgamate forms to instill a perceived necessity to limit guns, the President would be able to completely bypass the actual legislative process, which is horrifying, but gives people reason to believe there is still and may always be a reason to own guns.

otherwise, with weapons or not, there would be an uprising, which as a leader you'd want to avoid so passing a severly tyranical law would be beyond stupid from the leaders part if i give my own opinion on the matter.

Well, there are two equally horrible people running for president this election, so you never know.

I think they should be outlaw simply because carrying an automatic rifle or something like a concealed weapon could end up in shootings, I am not saying all people are likley to do so, but if you can do it, someone might do it, that's the rule of thumb i follow

It's possible to go on an axe killing spree too. Fire axes are still supplied in buildings with heavy traffic, and it only takes one madman to break that glass and start killing people. Someone can and might do it.

About Bearspray, I believe, that the pain and blindness while possible it's effective would not stop a furious momma bear charging at you, In sweden we only have brown bears, and we say you should hit it on the nose, but if the bear is already charging at you, I think you're done for to be honest, unless you shoot it, and even then it's not sure, many bears survive the first bullet if it's not a perfect hit. A bear pack a mean punch and they are full of endurance to most pain, I know of a hunter who got 2 of his dogs killed due to a bear charging at him while he shot at it. (granted the hunter shot first and only wounded the bear, so i blame the hunter, but still, if they can take bullets and still keep swinging I think that with enough rage they'd live through the spray)

The spray targets the eyes for a reason. All animals, no matter how monstrous, have involuntary actions in regards to damage of the eyes. Nature itself has bred this characteristic. A bear, while charging, will physically recoil if hit in the eyes with bear spray. It is a fine mist of capsaicinoids which are what your brain registers as "spicy". A burning sensation in the eyes is something to be feared because it can cause major damage and blindness, so if you are spraying a concentrated mist of irritable particles into a bear's eyes, it will retreat in many cases. Granted, this isn't a end-all be-all, especially if used incorrectly. But it is a really good deterrent.

the states who do that is very good of them, guns are dangerous enough for it to be a valid reason for the background check, mental health and training.

Except many of the most famous shootings have happened in California, including last year's San Bernadino shooting, which happened a couple of miles from where I live.

Well I don't know your bill of rights in my head, so i can't say for sure, but has there not been alterations to the original bill of rights? I believe it should be a privelige to own firearms, not a right, that is my formal opinion, but you might disagree, the same way I disagree to certain things about your gun laws.

The Bill of Rights were incorporated as amendments to the Constitution itself, and none of the original 10 amendments have been repealed. In fact, the only amendment to ever be repealed was the 18th, which formalized prohibition. This readily TOOK AWAY RIGHTS and was repealed because of the moral grounds it stood on. In 1971, America officially ratified the suffrage of 18 y/o young adults, so I would say we are still on a track of increasing rights instead of taking them away. But it only takes one generation to destroy everything. So even now the 2nd amendment is kept to back the rest of the amendments.

I accept your formal opinion, but for you to rule the opinion you have, as a foreigner, with little knowledge of the actual legislation and founding ideals of the US, over that of native citizens and the entire governmental process, I respectfully decline agreement that we should change, and I reject the statement you made that the previous thesis is "clear as day".


It's about as clear as a swamp bed in a hurricane.

 

[Izak]

(re: 1940s Germany)

1930s Germany and two completely incomparable situations.

 

[Draitex]

(re: 1940s Germany)



We have the Republican party, which is extremely pro-gun rights, to offset people in government that would take away this right, EXCEPT...


Well, executive orders can basically do anything, and there's no limiting power on them. If the case so happens that the right amalgamate forms to instill a perceived necessity to limit guns, the President would be able to completely bypass the actual legislative process, which is horrifying, but gives people reason to believe there is still and may always be a reason to own guns.



Well, there are two equally horrible people running for president this election, so you never know.



It's possible to go on an axe killing spree too. Fire axes are still supplied in buildings with heavy traffic, and it only takes one madman to break that glass and start killing people. Someone can and might do it.



The spray targets the eyes for a reason. All animals, no matter how monstrous, have involuntary actions in regards to damage of the eyes. Nature itself has bred this characteristic. A bear, while charging, will physically recoil if hit in the eyes with bear spray. It is a fine mist of capsaicinoids which are what your brain registers as "spicy". A burning sensation in the eyes is something to be feared because it can cause major damage and blindness, so if you are spraying a concentrated mist of irritable particles into a bear's eyes, it will retreat in many cases. Granted, this isn't a end-all be-all, especially if used incorrectly. But it is a really good deterrent.



Except many of the most famous shootings have happened in California, including last year's San Bernadino shooting, which happened a couple of miles from where I live.



The Bill of Rights were incorporated as amendments to the Constitution itself, and none of the original 10 amendments have been repealed. In fact, the only amendment to ever be repealed was the 18th, which formalized prohibition. This readily TOOK AWAY RIGHTS and was repealed because of the moral grounds it stood on. In 1971, America officially ratified the suffrage of 18 y/o young adults, so I would say we are still on a track of increasing rights instead of taking them away. But it only takes one generation to destroy everything. So even now the 2nd amendment is kept to back the rest of the amendments.

I accept your formal opinion, but for you to rule the opinion you have, as a foreigner, with little knowledge of the actual legislation and founding ideals of the US, over that of native citizens and the entire governmental process, I respectfully decline agreement that we should change, and I reject the statement you made that the previous thesis is "clear as day".


It's about as clear as a swamp bed in a hurricane.

Weel i don't think it's the same but even if i draw this comparison.
Germany had problems due to it's desperation, which makes the US desperation seem like a wealthy age in comparison.
Hitler rose to power through the people, he was voted in, he did an outstanding job, and he held several elections and votes about the laws he did pass untill the crystal night, the people stood by him even then however... Well the majority did.

I just don't see how someone could pass a tyrranical law in this day of age, without sever consequences and the close to immediate ''shut down'' if a president decided to say try to rule with iron fists. I might be wrong, but I believe that a tyrannical law would be abolished 3 days later.

fire axes are however much harder to kill someone with than a gun, plus when you drive an axe down someone's body it'll get stuck, and the murderer would be open to be grabbed and pinned down, that problem is much harder to get with say an automatic rifle than a melee weapon.

Yeah but that's the problem with the spray, it must be easy to miss or shoot the spray too early or too late, and even so, if you accidentaly walked into a baby bear cub, i doubt that spray could protect you against the momma's wrath.

The bill of rights has been ammended 17 times has it not? I seem to remember hearing that.


Yeah sure, but that could be argued for so many things, there are many pieces of a country's foundation that made the country into what it is, and what we fought for etc.
We Swedes for example had extereme monarchy leadership especially when we were a great power (all of em great kings, even Carolus Rex was great untill he lost against russia) and there was no separation from church and crown, we enforced lutherism and many more things like that, now sweden is one of the countries that has the fewest religious people in the world. (but, immigration politics in sweden being far too loose that might change soon. but i digress)

Point being, swedes fought and died for these reasonsm but now they are gone, all countries can change. But I get if you don't want to, but our opinions differ on the matter.

but we can leave this at that, I doubt we'll change eachother minds ^^

 

[Operation Wignut]

I just don't see how someone could pass a tyrranical law in this day of age, without sever consequences and the close to immediate ''shut down'' if a president decided to say try to rule with iron fists. I might be wrong, but I believe that a tyrannical law would be abolished 3 days later.

Well, Turkey's Ergodan has made the country more tyrannical, and that's supposedly a democratic country. It's a NATO member, as well, so it's not exactly far from Western ideals.

fire axes are however much harder to kill someone with than a gun, plus when you drive an axe down someone's body it'll get stuck, and the murderer would be open to be grabbed and pinned down, that problem is much harder to get with say an automatic rifle than a melee weapon.

But my point was that if you apply your idea of "if it can happen we shouldn't give that power" to things like fire axes it seems ridiculous, and yet you use it as a blanket statements, that's all I had qualms with.

Yeah but that's the problem with the spray, it must be easy to miss or shoot the spray too early or too late, and even so, if you accidentaly walked into a baby bear cub, i doubt that spray could protect you against the momma's wrath.

It's a pressurized can with enough contents for more than a 15-second spray. It certainly has the range and spread to stop a bear if you use it correctly. This spray is recommended by our national park rangers for a reason.

The bill of rights has been ammended 17 times has it not? I seem to remember hearing that.

Don't know where you would've heard that, but no. Never has, and hopefully never will, because it limits the government fairly evenly to protect human rights.

Yeah sure, but that could be argued for so many things, there are many pieces of a country's foundation that made the country into what it is, and what we fought for etc.
We Swedes for example had extereme monarchy leadership especially when we were a great power (all of em great kings, even Carolus Rex was great untill he lost against russia) and there was no separation from church and crown, we enforced lutherism and many more things like that, now sweden is one of the countries that has the fewest religious people in the world. (but, immigration politics in sweden being far too loose that might change soon. but i digress)

We've always stuck to our principles, though, with a few exceptions, most notably the Civil War. We haven't changed domestic governance as a whole EVER. We are trying to keep change from happening, because things have been working out pretty well with the current system.

Point being, swedes fought and died for these reasonsm but now they are gone, all countries can change. But I get if you don't want to, but our opinions differ on the matter.

but we can leave this at that, I doubt we'll change eachother minds ^^

I mean, if you don't want to back-and-forth that's fine, but I'm always willing.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Hitler rose to power through the people, he was voted in, he did an outstanding job, and he held several elections and votes about the laws he did pass untill the crystal night, the people stood by him even then however... Well the majority did.

Sorry, but you just lost me because he was NOT democratic.

https://lobelog.com/no-hitler-did-not-come-to-power-democratically/
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm
https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/what-hitler-was-not-elected/

 

[Draitex]

Well, Turkey's Ergodan has made the country more tyrannical, and that's supposedly a democratic country. It's a NATO member, as well, so it's not exactly far from Western ideals.



But my point was that if you apply your idea of "if it can happen we shouldn't give that power" to things like fire axes it seems ridiculous, and yet you use it as a blanket statements, that's all I had qualms with.



It's a pressurized can with enough contents for more than a 15-second spray. It certainly has the range and spread to stop a bear if you use it correctly. This spray is recommended by our national park rangers for a reason.



Don't know where you would've heard that, but no. Never has, and hopefully never will, because it limits the government fairly evenly to protect human rights.




We've always stuck to our principles, though, with a few exceptions, most notably the Civil War. We haven't changed domestic governance as a whole EVER. We are trying to keep change from happening, because things have been working out pretty well with the current system.


I mean, if you don't want to back-and-forth that's fine, but I'm always willing.

Yeah, but Erdogan does not control the millitary, the millitary is not part of turkey, the same way which is why the millitary rose up against him.
Also Erdogan is a fuckhead, but turkey is vastly different from America in many ways, And If Erdogan keeps overdoing it, I doubt he'll be in power for long.

I think it's a big difference, between knives and axes in comparison to a gun.

I believe it may work, but I doubt that it would be enough if the bear is angry enough, I think the most useful area for guns are to shoot animals, be it for game, sport, defense or meat

I heard it from George Carlin, and I looked it up here, but i might've misread or misunderstood
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/additional-amendments/

 

[Operation Wignut]

I think it's a big difference, between knives and axes in comparison to a gun.

Then why make a blanket statement like that if you don't agree with it?

I believe it may work, but I doubt that it would be enough if the bear is angry enough, I think the most useful area for guns are to shoot animals, be it for game, sport, defense or meat

I'm inclined to believe the people who have to use it in bear encounters. If the Park Rangers say it works, that's enough for me.

I heard it from George Carlin, and I looked it up here, but i might've misread or misunderstood
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/additional-amendments/

That's the Constitution. That's what the Bill of Rights affected. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments of the Constitution.

Sorry, but you just lost me because he was NOT democratic.

https://lobelog.com/no-hitler-did-not-come-to-power-democratically/
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm
https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/what-hitler-was-not-elected/

Yeah, he beat up opposing parties and torched the Parliament, right? He wasn't exactly a bureaucrat.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Yeah, he beat up opposing parties and torched the Parliament, right? He wasn't exactly a bureaucrat.

Banned opposition, intimidated centrist politicians, abused his position and forced bills through... what a great democrat!

 

[Draitex]

Sorry, but you just lost me because he was NOT democratic.

https://lobelog.com/no-hitler-did-not-come-to-power-democratically/
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm
https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/what-hitler-was-not-elected/

Yup, I jumped the gun there, but he did however use referendums, revotes and elections and he had the peoples backing.
he bacame a Reich chancelor, for one, and he used the referendums before most major events
For example Anschluss

 

[Draitex]

Then why make a blanket statement like that if you don't agree with it?



I'm inclined to believe the people who have to use it in bear encounters. If the Park Rangers say it works, that's enough for me.


Yeah, he beat up opposing parties and torched the Parliament, right? He wasn't exactly a bureaucrat.

Well Svalbard uses rifles i think

 

[Dr Fallout]

Yup, I jumped the gun there, but he did however use referendums, revotes and elections and he had the peoples backing.
he bacame a Reich chancelor, for one, and he used the referendums before most major events
For example Anschluss

Actually, he only became Chancellor thanks to the backing of Hindburg who wanted to tame Hitler and take advantage of his fanatical party base.

 

[Draitex]

Actually, he only became Chancellor thanks to the backing of Hindburg who wanted to tame Hitler and take advantage of his fanatical party base.

He still had the people of Germany, Austria and Switzerland behind him, when he made the anchluss.

I am not saying Hitler was a good person, nor am i arguing for him, I think he was a fuckhead, but many of his politcal moves(like the anchluss) as a leader was agreed upon by the people, and hitler did do a lot to get Germany back on their feet, which is why they backed him in those moves,

But Hitler also did a lot of shit moves, like propaganda, lying, and yes starting WW2 and the holocaust.

 

[Dr Fallout]

He still had the people of Germany, Austria and Switzerland behind him, when he made the anchluss.

I am not saying Hitler was a good person, nor am i arguing for him, I think he was a fuckhead, but many of his politcal moves(like the anchluss) as a leader was agreed upon by the people, and hitler did do a lot to get Germany back on their feet, which is why they backed him in those moves,

But Hitler also did a lot of shit moves, like propaganda, lying, and yes starting WW2 and the holocaust.

True, but everything before that was mere lying and pretend.

 

[Draitex]

True, but everything before that was mere lying and pretend.

I admitted i jumped the gun there, but a lot of his actions had the backing of the people, that was the main point i wanted to adress. anyway, We're derailing the thread now so I suggest we get OnT again :3

 

[Dr Fallout]

I admitted i jumped the gun there, but a lot of his actions had the backing of the people, that was the main point i wanted to adress. anyway, We're derailing the thread now so I suggest we get OnT again :3

True, though before I finish, he didn't have the backing of the people. He had the backing of less then a third that could vote.