Why American's "gun culture" makes us different when it comes to "gun control"

a reply to: JackofBlades

You are correct about the reason for the Second Amendment.

Yesterday, at the Democratic Convention, it is said they were taking Bernie signs away from the representative delegates. So, at least at the DNC, the First Amendment is kaput.

Hillary and the rest of the Liberals are afraid of an armed citizenry who can revolt against their leaders. That does not work will with an oligarchy or the New World Order.

The Third Amendment will be cared for only when they start housing National Guard soldiers in your home to keep an eye on you.

Of Course, the Fourth Amendment died years ago but there are still a few diehards who want it resurrected.

This is an interesting footnote in history.

In 1932 (or thereabouts) there were about 9.5 Million Jews in Europe. (Pew Research). In 1939 it is estimated that Hitler had a following of 2 million Nazi Members.

Just think, if every Jew had one rifle and one bullet, Hitler would have been a mere footnote in history.
There endeth the lesson.

a reply to: atrollstalker

You are very correct. Gun restrictions always precede govt atrocities. However, you use an erroneous example. Not your fault though, I understand.

originally posted by: Rebel of Oz
For over a century, the Jewish World Almanac has been widely regarded as the most authentic source for the world’s Jewish population numbers. Academics all over the world, including the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica, used to rely on the accuracy of those numbers. Here is what the World Almanacs of 1933 and 1948 had to say about the world population of Jews.

originally posted by: Jewish World Almanac 1933

originally posted by: Jewish World Almanac 1948

originally posted by: Rebel of Oz
In other words, according to the World Almanac the world population of Jews increased (!) between 1933 and 1948 from 15,315,000 to 15,753,000. If the German government under Adolf Hitler had – as alleged – murdered six million Jews those losses should have been reflected in the Jewish population numbers quoted in the World Almanac.

originally posted by: SrWingCommander

"It's all about power. America is the only nation to consider We the People as it's sovereign, and the government our servants.

I disagree strongly with this. Coming out of America, to live in France made me realize America is not far behind North Korea. We are brainwashed and manipulated to believe many completely false ideas about ourselves, our country, and the world.

No, the difference is that we Americans have been brainwashed to believe that power lies in individuality- so that we stay fractured as a people and do not gain force through solidarity. It is solidarity that the people keep their power over the government.

Standing alone feels more powerful if you have a gun in your hand. You suddenly gain a bit more power than the closest individuals to you.

But, that does not change your powerlessness faced with the government. The government is not an individual - as much as you might try to convince yourself of it through complaining about the PONTUS The government is a very large collective. A very organized collective entity with weapons beyond your imagination.

You, little man or woman, with your little gun, are nothing faced with that.

You only have the ability to shoot your neighbor, insuring that internal conflicts continue, keeping solidarity away, and serving as a pressure release for any discontent you might have arise in response to what that government is doing. This makes the masters very happy.


The big difference between the US and most of the world is that value upon individuality - almost every other country knows you need collective force to counter collective force.

(A government that remains a servant to the people is commonly called a "nanny state" in the USA, a derogatory term fed to us to keep us turned against one another and in the belief that our government is NOT our servant)

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Mr Headshot

It's because the founding fathers liked to hunt, nothing more. Crazy righty

The Founders probably thought The British might come back to reclaim The Colonies, and wanted the population armed and ready if they did.

I don't think The Founders had it in mind that U.S. ciitizens would use firearms to actually kill each other.
They must be turning in their graves.

This is where I see logic as well. Back then, if you were an able male Bostonian ( as an example), and sympathetic to the plight of the colonies, especially with Boston under siege... you took up arms. You would probably be militia, and perhaps a Minuteman. This act of self-armament became extremely important in what was to come about, and it would be written in the constitution as a right to bear arms, because it had proven itself to be very effective.

This year, Massachusetts will become a state that will ban guns like the AR-15. The kind of guns that are used by terrorists and criminals to kill others. I like target shooting also, but you have so many small arms options available to you and accurate rifles that make this a skill, and also permit you to bear arms in the protection of yourself and family. That is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution as far as I am concerned, and I hope other states adopt the same level of sanity.

a reply to: charlyv

THAT is irrelevant if you consider the purpose is to rebel however.
WHICH was THEN written about,often as the reason.
High capacity mags are for fighting we want to be ready to do that with the best tools we can aquire.
WE couldn't care less about these assault bans in these urban s##tholes.
WE are armed so WE don't have that.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: charlyv

THAT is irrelevant if you consider the purpose is to rebel however.
WHICH was THEN written about,often as the reason.
High capacity mags are for fighting we want to be ready to do that with the best tools we can aquire.
WE couldn't care less about these assault bans in these urban s##tholes.
WE are armed so WE don't have that.

Well that enables the S##tholes to have them as well, and they could care less about rebel or reason, they just want to kill you.

a reply to: charlyv

Our second string can hold the loosers.
WE can just rest.
Terrorists want us from passed SINS and because WE are the biggest dog(Christians)I just won't pay for them,myself
I for one, wouldn't be reduced to a holpiphobic mess against the latest list of foes ,I had the job to kill some of them,PUSSIES who can't stand up and fight.
Is that offensive?
I struggle to care.

originally posted by: charlyv
Well that enables the S##tholes to have them as well, and they could care less about rebel or reason, they just want to kill you.

Wrong. Criminals will have them anyways. In fact, following your advice, criminals will be the only ones armed. Take a look at Chicago. Or the prohibition on drugs. Or alcohol. Prohibition INCREASES violence. Not the opposite. Remember, God had a prohibition in the Garden, and not even he succeeded. AND HE ONLY HAD TO DEAL WITH TWO PEOPLE. But you think gun prohibition will turn out differently. Are you familiar with Einstein's definition of insanity?

a reply to: rexsblues

Europeans are essentially wardens of the state. And most of them have never even heard the counter arguments to the fallacious ones they take to heart because there is no debate at all on guns in Europe.

I am a European but I recognise that any population that is disarmed have chosen to relinquish their freedom and their sovereignty. Good luck protecting yourself against the Muslim savages ravaging Europe, they'll have guns and even bombs because they don't really care about the law of the land. It's the law abiding natives that can't protect themselves.

America may be a decadent and wasteful country but that is to be expected when you're on the top, at least they have the freedom to bear arms. For now.

a reply to: MayanBoricua

Unless you are carrying a weapon (and doubtful, it is an AR), the possibilities you will be near one when "whatever happens" requires it, are very low. Conversely, if you are noticed with this kind of weapon, you certainly become a prime target.
I think every effort to rid them from the general public is justified in the long run, and it will take a long time.

originally posted by: charlyv
Unless you are carrying a weapon (and doubtful, it is an AR), the possibilities you will be near one when "whatever happens" requires it, are very low.

You mean like home invasions? Consider this myth busted.

originally posted by: charlyv
Conversely, if you are noticed with this kind of weapon, you certainly become a prime target.

False. Concealed carriers do not carry AR15's. They carry handguns. Incidentally, more than 90% of gun crimes are committed with handguns. So you well-meaning cowards need to be worried about pistols, not rifles. Yet it's the rifles y'all want banned. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

originally posted by: charlyv
I think every effort to rid them from the general public is justified in the long run, and it will take a long time.