What is the end goal for the left on the 2nd?

a reply to: network dude

It's always those of questionable knowledge, from the internet, that find themselves believing they are the leading expert on the subject at hand.

You can find 10,000 articles saying that koalas are harmless, but they will find the 1 that says they are the most ruthless and dangerous animals in the world and that is the hill they will die on.

a reply to: PorkChop96

drop bears. Say no more. it's their cuteness that luls you into a false sense of security, then they lunge at your jugular. Never underestimate a drop bear.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

Are you suggesting that those that shoot someone in self-defense are of unsound mind?

What of police who are bringing down those that they feel are a danger? What of hunters who accidentally shoot at someone, mistaking them for prey? What about those who shoot themselves or others by accident?

Im done, you want to play word games and move goal posts fine enjoy yourself.

I am very safe from 2 legged animals my only risk is 4 legged, where people have lived for many years even further out than I do and have plenty to eat.

Its the lower 48 where the out of season hunting typically occurs.

I wasn't moving any goalposts. If people are shot and killed with a gun, for any reason, it is a gun fatality.

It is unresonable in a debate on gun control, to discard some of those statistics arbitrarily.

and if that's as deep as you drill down to find out where the problem is, it's no wonder you see guns as the culprit. But just as drinking water is a good thing, you can die from it, so should it be outlawed? Or should folks be taught not to drink too much of it?

Once you separate suicides, and gang violence, the gun crime issue seems to fade into obscurity. Both of those are important, but neither will be solved by removing guns. Actually, you will never be able to remove guns, and only the law abiding citizens who follow all the stupid rules already in place will be the one's to give them up if it comes to that. The criminals will keep theirs. Focus on mental health first, and the rest will follow.

In Australia, Norway, Canada, the UK and in New Zealand, there has been fairly strict gun control implemented after a mass shooting events in those counries.

Those legislative changes have been designed to prevent such mass shootings and other gun violence, and there are indications that they are doing that, although overall gun violence was low even before the legislative changes.

Those countries in recent times have a good record in human rights, and they abide by, and accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which grant more rights than are covered in the US Constitution). The USA does not accept and abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The 2nd Amendment porports to defend against tyranny, but it is provably the very path to tyrrany - there is historical precedent that armed uprisings against established national authorities have most often led to tyrannical and opressive government. A few cases in point are; the French Revolution under Robspierre, the Bolshevic Revolution under Stalin, The Chinese Communist Revolution under Mao and Islamism in numerous countries.

The US Constitution, the guiding document of the US Revolution, is supposed to be the exemplar of genius, freedom and security, but it led to the US Civil War, so clearly it doesn't, and hasn't, actually delivered in the slightest.

Even now, there are insurrectionist forces threatening the USA, and many of them claim the US Constitution as their guiding principals. It clearly isn't all that it is cracked-up to be.

Suggesting that arms in the hands of anyone who wants them is a prevention against tyrrany is as rational as distributing hard drugs to prevent addiction. No-one who has a modicum if intelligence and a reading of history would believe such nonsense.

a reply to: chr0naut

thanks for your unwanted opinion. it's been noted. Now, our imperfect nation will deal with our imperfectness on our own, and you can go snuggle up with a Koala, just don't turn your back on him.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

thanks for your unwanted opinion. it's been noted. Now, our imperfect nation will deal with our imperfectness on our own, and you can go snuggle up with a Koala, just don't turn your back on him.

Your nation will discuss things, ad nauseum, will accuse and counter accuse, will point and waggle fingers at their opponents, but ultimately, will do nothing.

Perhaps they may elect someone who talks big, but still, after the dust settles, nothing will be done.

And there aren't any koalas in New Zealand where I live (except perhaps is a zoo?). Besides, I'd much prefer to cuddle one of my own species if they were amenable.



Koala Chlamydia: One Direction Boy Band Members Fear Infection (VIDEO)

a reply to: chr0naut

The US Constitution, the guiding document of the US Revolution, is supposed to be the exemplar of genius, freedom and security, but it led to the US Civil War, so clearly it doesn't, and hasn't, actually delivered in the slightest.

Did you know the governmental overreach and centralization of the same were among the reasons for the Civil War?

Of course you didn't...because that's the side that won.

Even now, there are insurrectionist forces threatening the USA, and many of them claim the US Constitution as their guiding principals. It clearly isn't all that it is cracked-up to be.

Perhaps. But have you bothered to ask why?

Could it possibly have anything at all to do with the fact that the many normal courses of governmental redress have failed them? Could it possibly have anything to do with unequal standards of justice?

This may be difficult for you to believe, but there exists people who do not like their gov'ts to tell them what to do and think. Turns out, that's exactly what the US Constitution represents.

a reply to: chr0naut

The US Constitution, the guiding document of the US Revolution, is supposed to be the exemplar of genius, freedom and security, but it led to the US Civil War, so clearly it doesn't, and hasn't, actually delivered in the slightest.

Did you know the governmental overreach and centralization of the same were among the reasons for the Civil War?

Of course you didn't...because that's the side that won.

Even now, there are insurrectionist forces threatening the USA, and many of them claim the US Constitution as their guiding principals. It clearly isn't all that it is cracked-up to be.

Perhaps. But have you bothered to ask why?

Could it possibly have anything at all to do with the fact that the many normal courses of governmental redress have failed them? Could it possibly have anything to do with unequal standards of justice?

This may be difficult for you to believe, but there exists people who do not like their gov'ts to tell them what to do and think. Turns out, that's exactly what the US Constitution represents.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

The US Constitution, the guiding document of the US Revolution, is supposed to be the exemplar of genius, freedom and security, but it led to the US Civil War, so clearly it doesn't, and hasn't, actually delivered in the slightest.

Did you know the governmental overreach and centralization of the same were among the reasons for the Civil War?

Of course you didn't...because that's the side that won.

Even now, there are insurrectionist forces threatening the USA, and many of them claim the US Constitution as their guiding principals. It clearly isn't all that it is cracked-up to be.

Perhaps. But have you bothered to ask why?

Perhaps the stress of the cognitive dissonance that they have to hold to believe the stuff that they are indoctrinated in? I imagine it's the same thing that North Koreans have about their magical 'great leader'.

Could it possibly have anything at all to do with the fact that the many normal courses of governmental redress have failed them? Could it possibly have anything to do with unequal standards of justice?

But surely those things are covered by numerous clauses in the Constitution, and in legal statute?

Gosh, perhaps it isn't that great a set of guiding principals for a nation?

This may be difficult for you to believe, but there exists people who do not like their gov'ts to tell them what to do and think. Turns out, that's exactly what the US Constitution represents.

So, the Constitution is all about anarchy? Every man for themselves?

I find that if you squint your eyes enough, things always look fuzzier and softer.



The US Constitution is outdated, poorly written (and therefore wide open to misinterpretation), and simply doesn't always work in practice.

Why should a free and fair country have a civil war at all? Are the citizens that dissatisfied that they need to take up arms against each other?

Why should everyone there need to be armed to feel safe?

It sounds like a nasty place to live, full of the disefranchised and disillusioned.

a reply to: chr0naut

The US Constitution is outdated, poorly written (and therefore wide open to misinterpretation), and simply doesn't always work in practice.

It's possible and you can certainly make an argument for it. Yet is has existed as the framework for a Republic that has lasted 250 years to the nation that has been the beacon of freedom to the world and lead in innovation.

Why should a free and fair country have a civil war at all? Are the citizens that dissatisfied that they need to take up arms?

Because people exist who would take power and pervert it to something that is detrimental to the population it claims to represent. I'm sure you can relate with your positions on not only firearms but novel viruses and remedies......

Why should everyone there need to be armed to feel safe?

Freedom has not now, nor ever been free. See above for a few points as to why....

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

The US Constitution is outdated, poorly written (and therefore wide open to misinterpretation), and simply doesn't always work in practice.

It's possible and you can certainly make an argument for it. Yet is has existed as the framework for a Republic that has lasted 250 years

There are governmental systems that have been around for longer and that have never had the level of internal (or external) conflict the US has had.

to the nation that has been the beacon of freedom to the world and lead in innovation.

Wrong on both counts.

Freedom Index by Country 2024

Most Innovative Countries 2024

I can only guess that Americans must have been indoctrinated to the extent that they on one hand just ignore the failings of US system, and at the same time acknowledge the racism, repeated riots, unequal laws, opressive government, ultra-capitalist opression, incarceration of non-criminals, religious persecution and corruption?

The USA incarcerates more of its citizens than most other countries in the world, and yet its crime rate is median. How does that work as an allegedly 'free' country?

Incarceration Rates by Country 2024

Crime Rate by Country 2024

Something is seriously wrong there.

Why should a free and fair country have a civil war at all? Are the citizens that dissatisfied that they need to take up arms?

Because people exist who would take power and pervert it to something that is detrimental to the population it claims to represent. I'm sure you can relate with your positions on not only firearms but novel viruses and remedies......

The novel virus wasn't something that was 'done' by the US government. It started in another country, and speread across the world regardless of ethnicity or political ideology. So applying those constraints around 'blame' is nonsense propagandization of the issues.

Plagues and pestilences have arisen all throughout history and every time there are idiots who blame someone else (if it's not the government, then it's them sinners and witches, or them other ethnicities who poisoned the wells. You know they eat babies, blah, blah, blah...).

And lets not forget who was the nominal 'leader' of that government that implemented those policies at that time. How's that for a good chunk of obvious cognitive dissonance there.

Why should everyone there need to be armed to feel safe?

Freedom has not now, nor ever been free. See above for a few points as to why....

Mass sucide in the name of an ideology, in a pointless conflict against your peers, is not freedom.

Freedom is where you aren't having to be motivated externally, where you don't have to conform to some straightjacket ideal. Where you are simply free to make choices as long as they won't hurt yourself or someone else.

Free people don't need to rebel. If you feel you have to rebel against something, then you obviously must be being repressed by that something.

a reply to: chr0naut

I see you're moving goalpost in order to railroad the discussion to your usual talking points.

Neverminding the fact that your post history and propensity for being on the side of authoritarians is ever present

a reply to: chr0naut

my nation didn't let some outsider dictate the rules of gun ownership. But you do you boo.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude
Those countries in recent times have a good record in human rights, and they abide by, and accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which grant more rights than are covered in the US Constitution).

Said someone who is completely clueless about what our Constitution both says and means.

Our Constitution does not grant any Rights. None. What it does, in addition to laying the framework for our system of government, is to restrict said government from doing certain things with specificity. It also protects countless Rights that are not specifically mentioned - see the 9th and 10th Amendments for proof.

The USA does not accept and abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It absolutely does - at least, any of them that are consistent with the ideals of Liberty and Freedom.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

I see you're moving goalpost in order to railroad the discussion to your usual talking points.

Neverminding the fact that your post history and propensity for being on the side of authoritarians is ever present

Even if we ignore all the internal strife (which often has not even yet been resolved), these things happened in that "bastion of freedom", done by those who, hand on heart, pledged alleigance.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

my nation didn't let some outsider dictate the rules of gun ownership. But you do you boo.

What outsider? The gunman?

It was a unanimous agreement by all government and opposition parties, and carried the approval of the majority of the people.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude
Those countries in recent times have a good record in human rights, and they abide by, and accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which grant more rights than are covered in the US Constitution).

Said someone who is completely clueless about what our Constitution both says and means.

I'm not.

Our Constitution does not grant any Rights. None.

The Bill of Rights 'Nuff said?

What it does, in addition to laying the framework for our system of government, is to restrict said government from doing certain things with specificity. It also protects countless Rights that are not specifically mentioned - see the 9th and 10th Amendments for proof.

All of the first ten amendments are referred to as "the Bill of Rights".

The USA does not accept and abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It absolutely does - at least, any of them that are consistent with the ideals of Liberty and Freedom.

What You Should Know About The U.S. And Human Rights - ACLU (note this is a .pdf).

a reply to: chr0naut

The Constitution identifies rights that are granted to all free people.

The Constitution is a document restricting government from infringing on those rights.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

The Constitution identifies rights that are granted to all free people.

Funny, I was responding to tanstaffl, who said the opposite to you - that the Constitution did not identify any rights.

The Constitution is a document restricting government from infringing on those rights.

The preamble to the Constitution says:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It would be wonderful for the Constitution to be written back then to prevent the current government overreach, but clearly, from the preamble, that wasn't seen as an issue 235 years ago.

And the Constitution has currently no power to restrain the many Federal Government agencies from generating thousands of enforcable mandates upon its citizens (is that liberty?). So, it isn't even working if that was the intent of the Constitution.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

my nation didn't let some outsider dictate the rules of gun ownership. But you do you boo.

What outsider? The gunman?

It was a unanimous agreement by all government and opposition parties, and carried the approval of the majority of the people.

Yes, the gunman, who traveled to your home, took his shiny new AR-15, and killed some folks. Then he stated that his reason for doing that was to make you restrict guns. Your government couldn't fondle his nut sack fast enough. But what better way to get the public to follow your will than to have a fresh mass shooting, and waste no time pulling that already written bill out of the drawer and take them gunz!

Don't reply to me on this, it's totally factual, and irrelevant. The US is not Kiwi land, and Kiwi land is not the US.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
I'm not.

You most indubitably are.

The Bill of Rights 'Nuff said?

As I said... clueless. Ignorant is another word to describe it.

The BoR only protects Rights that it considers as pre-existing. Our Rights do not come from any government. Governments can only bestow privileges.

All of the first ten amendments are referred to as "the Bill of Rights".

Why yes... yes, they are. And they are merely specifying cvertain pre-existing Rights that the Founders feltr needed to be explicitly proitected.

All you have to do to understand this is to have read some of the other foundational documents of our great experiment - things like the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, Elliot's Debates, etc - then you would know that there were those who argued that if we carved out a few Rights and explicitly mentioned those in tthe amendments under consideration, that there would later be those who would try to make the argument that only those Rights were protected, and that the government created those Rights.

Exactly like what you are doing right now.

A compromise was decided on that became the 9th and 10th Amenemdnts.

What You Should Know About The U.S. And Human Rights - ACLU (note this is a .pdf).

What you are failing to grasp is that the reason the USA is not a signatory is that that document is an abominatoin, as it doesn't recognize pre=existing Rights, it grants them - and what is granted, can be taken away.