A LOT OF FOREIGNERS THIBK THAT OUR GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE NOT STRICT ENOUGH.  I AM AN NOT AMERICAN SUPREMIST (ON WITH THE FATHERLAND), BUT THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE I BELIEVE FOREIGNERS SHOULD MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.  PEOPLE SAY THAT THE GUNS LEAD TO VIOLENCE, I DISAGREE, IT IS NOT THE GUN THAT CAUSES THE PROBLEMS,BUT THE MAN USING THE GUN.  OWNING GUNS IS AWSOME (MY HOUSE IS A VIRTUAL ARSENAL COMPLETE WITH AN SKS) FOR BOTH DEFENSIVE AND SPORTING REASONS (I LOVE HUNTING).

IN MY OPINION GUN FREEDOM IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE OTHER FREEDOMS AMRICA ENJOYS....SO PLEASE I'M TIRED OF PEOPLE SAYING GUNS ARE EVIL 

sorry 'bout the all caps, i didn't notice it was on until i was almost finished and i didn't want to go back and rewrite it all

and it is not ranting...

do you think it is morally wrong to kill animals vamun tianshu?  i definitely don't think so, but if that is your view i do respect that.

the guns would be gotten from elsewhere, crime would remain the same (I think)

and the SKS in just darned fun to shoot

eaglecap has exactly the right idea...the government is showing trust in its citizens to allow them to have guns

(but hunting is still fun)

that's crazy!...there's a big difference between current events in the US and in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Are trying to say we should let them have armed uprisings? getting more of our people killed?  No, I think that once Iraq and Afganistan have have their governments firmly in place they should be allowed to own guns, but there are just too many people over there who just want to fight against democracy because they hate the US for reasons other than setting up a new, better government.  With guns... it would be awful

I am 100% pro second amendment and I suport being able to onw everything even beyond an automatic rifle, but this post is so poorly made and your argument so hackneyed I see no reason to support your views on this thread.

so we don't need guns to defend ourselves anymore, huh?  just yesterday I was watching a news story about man who attacked with a knife in his own home... he said he was sure the man would have killed him and his family if he hadn't had his 9mm handy (shot him like 5 times in the chest).   my family also has guns close at hand in case of this problem... except its an semi-automatic shotgun we'll be using .

That's a very unfair comparison, America is full of poor immigrants and disparate socioeconomic groups unlike the relatively more homogenous Europe.

As for the Lott study I have read many reports praising its methodology as very thorough yet this is the first time I've seen an article attacking it, not surprisingly from the traditionally antigun New England Journal of Medicine which only mentions "ten other academics" without any analysis of their bias at all.

And again, as Eaglecap said, the American states with the most crime are traditionally those with a lot of gun control.  I live in relatively safe Virginia which has pretty lax gun control laws but across the Potomac in Maryland and Washington DC crime is much worse and their gun laws are pretty Draconian.

it's the same way here in western kentucky, everybody's got guns (some have enough to equip a small army), but there is almost no crime here (at least in the rural areas where most of the guns are). 

despite what I said I have to intervene here.  This is a common argument but there are reasons it doesnt work. 

1.  banning guns will be like banning drugs, you just create a black market and enrich the mafia, needing more violent police actions to combat them, hence making more violence.

2.  US culture, not gun policies are at fault for higher crime.  This is incredibly local.  According the FBI the US would have the same crime rate as Europe if you cut off the South from the rest of the country.  The state with the lowest gun crime is vermont, which has th eleast gun control laws and no registered hate groups.  A record no one else in the entire nation can match.  New Hampshire is similar, less laws about guns, less crime.  These coincidentaly are the states with the best budgets and least problems.  They should rule the country.

3.  The idiotic mistakes and violent frenzys of rednecks and gangsters should be used to punish responsible people.

please point to where you found this.  I live in the south, and the hate groups I'm assuming you mean those like the KKK have very little power or following like they did in the past.

If you're looking for crime, look to the big cities with all the ethnic diversity like New York, Chicago, and New Orleans.  The rednecks talk a lot, but rarely do they commit gun crimes...take it from me half my friends are rednecks.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n12_v94/ai_21020057 - http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n12_v94/a i_21020057

The south is like a leech on America, the nationalists from the south who seem not to realize our revolution started in Masachusettes when the south was full of pro-British loyalists seem to enjoy domestic violence so much our whole nation looks bad.

has it ever occured to anyone the irony of this argument?  There are 2 primary purposes to gun ownership, protection from foreign invasion and protection from the abuses of the state.

Have you ever noticed that most of the people that support the second amendment are very pro-government?  They tend to like government meddling in social affairs and trust the government alot.  Kinda hypocritical dont you think.  In my opinion you are a hypocrite if you say, against gun control but for the patriot act or vice versa.

Am I the only person against welfare and gun control who is actually consistent and against government intervention in general? Am I the only person that would use my second amendment rights not only on a foreign invader but against the abusive forces of my own goverment?

sure if the forces were abusive, however, anyone saying that they are at this time is crazy.  But the present American government being abusive LOL LOL LOL. The United States government is not the problem in America. 

First of all I believe that all the second amendment should be adhered to.

As a result of that gun ownership should only be given to those who train monthly in a public area for militia duty.

Then again I believe that the US military should also patrol the streets of crime-ridden major cities in an effort to stamp out crime.

------------------------------

To Tobodai:

I believe we are the most opposing forces in the AE Forums, its a shame that we don't converse more on topics. Actually most of the time we agree on things but for totally different reasons. Also, I believe that if you were a turk, chinese or macedonian and Kentuckian was an armenian, mongolian or greek, this thread would be closed. 

-----------------------------

To our non-american friends:

You will never convince (like that was your goal, though *rolls eyes*) eaglecap or kentuckian that banning guns is a good idea. Eaglecap lives out west where the gun replaced the dog as man's best friend. And Kentuckian lives in the south...and not texas south either...this is where nascar dad's are born.

Sorry if I've overgeneralized you two, if you'd like to elaborate on the gun culture in your area then have at it. As for me I'm a city kid who only saw guns as tools used by violent criminals, and cops so my views are a bit different.

from your perspective.  If you agree with America's government you have nothing to fear, but our government is now more powerful now than even some totalitarian empires have been.  If you are indipendant of American society in mind, the US government is a larger threat than any incredibly unlikely terrorist attack.  America's legislative and executive branch have more in common with Osama than most state entities do...

Than you can Pm me some time, Im much kinder in private than public.  And yes this thread would be closed if I was one of the "volatile ethnicities" But those people for all they claim tend to be racists, because nationalism is just racism-lite.  Im just angry at the south for holding back real america from its true potential, not for nationalist reasons, but because I live here and it effects me directly, in economic ways, such as paying for people that are supposedly anti welfare to have welfare and electricity, while they rant about how where i come from is evil.

Funny, I always considered Coolstorm and the Chinese nationalists my true AE opposite, not you.

funny...here believe just the opposite...we believe that the big cities are the problem...the place where I live is all middle class so the welfare is not coming anywhere near me.  I believe that it is you guys holding America from its full potential.   The south and mid-west hold onto the old traditions that make our country great... and any who thinks nationalism is bad...wow, that's awful.  Pride in one's country is very important, it's like pride in one's home or pride in one's achievements, America is a major part of who we are.  But you act like you could care less about it. *sighs*

Actually Tobodai, if you look at Crime rates, the South isn't more prone to crime than anywhere else.  On the contrary, many of the Southern states have less crime than the Northern states.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

Of course America is just a nation.  Because I was born there doesnt tie me  to it.  I am  a total individualist.  I do what I do to make life better for me and mine, everything else be damned.  Therefore I must flee north and get away from thesse border states.  Back to the good old north which coupled with California is resposible for 80% of the countries economy, The Northeast would be better of its own state.  All the money we spend that is sent to southern states that cant ballance their budget, and in return we get pretty much nothing.  The rest of the country has nothingto offer us but extremist politicians who want to regulate our personal lives.    And if the northeast pulled out the uS economy would totally collapse as all the important economic centers are in New York!

move to some other country then if you don't like it here, lord.

lol You know youve won the argument when an American says with a hurt spoiled child expression (well you should just leave!).  Im not the one whose lame, and my tax money funds this country, so Im not the one who should leave!  This country was founded by libertarians and if we must evacuate people based on ideology than only libertarians should be allowed to stay.  Liberals can go to France or Sweden and conservatives can go to Pakistan/Saudi Arabia/Iran. 

But if you evacuate one group u have to evacuate the other.  I dont want to be stuck with a ton of either liberals or conservatives in the end. 

someone saying "you should leave" does not mean you've won the argument...not by a long shot.  some people are way too far out on the left wing to understand America, and yes some people are way too far on the right wing to care about America.  But America is an ideal, not just a country, and I hate it when people get the hippy mentality and say "who cares about America".  I think it's been too many generations since the revolution or something for the short-memoried northerners.  (and i don't want to hear it about the the Civil War, the southerners in that went in to hold up what they believed was the ideal even if they were wrong at least they cared unlike some people)

if America is an ideal the south is the most agaisnt that ideal of anyone.  The ideal of America is no longer alive but it is because of people like you.  America was effectively a creation of humanistic thought in the French and English tradition.  Our revolution was about two things:

1.  Freedom from excessive taxation, especially to fund an empire we didnt feel connected with

2.  Individual indipendance

Individual independace is a concept hated by the south.  If they had their way the government could order peoples social lives around.  Also remeber our revolution was started by anti-governmetn radicals (like myself) and was centered in Boston, the loyalists where centeres in teh south. 

Freedom from government, against taxation, for individual liberties, these describe my ideology perfectly, yours however is quite different which is ironic as you at least support the right to bear arms.  The reason states like Vermont and New Hampshire are so succesful and have less problems that anyone else is because they adhere to this ideology.  \

Also loyalty to the ideals of the revolution does not mean loyalty to America of today.  The America of today is far more oppresive, tax friendly, and wicked than the British even where to the colonists.

Being loyal to the America in ideal is in fact totaly adverse to the America of today.  And it has been the free thinking multiethnic, idustrious and capitalistic achievment of the north that has made it that way.  The same states that led the rebellion against British rule and have born most of our great inventors still have that culture of moving to the future, challenging authority, and making big bucks. Indeed the entire constitution of the Unisted States was pretty much copied from Rhode Island, the state that first burnt a British warship in protest.

So you don't like the fact that you have a near limitless supply of cannon fodder, so you don't have to get hurt defending your ideas.

Actually, if that occured the economy would scarcely collapse it would take a few months to restabilize as industries would move into niches left open. Besides there are many major economic centers outside of NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, etc.

You seem to confuse revolutionary ideas with American Tradition, American Tradition was founded in the early 20th Century with WWI and WWII when the US decided to shift from an insular perspective to a global one. American Tradition became codified in the New Deal Era of FDR, which was radically different from the Libertarian views expressed by the founding fathers. The founding fathers wanted gov't formed like greek city-states, which is impossible outside of New England because of the sheer bulk of territory and numbers, FDR's socialist perspective determined that the wealthy should sacrifice to help the poor, (Tennessee Valley Authority, Meatless Tuesdays?, Rationing, etc.) which is part of american tradition.

It couldn't be the lower populations or the higher per capita income or the class of people that live there could it. How many major industries existed there for poor immigrants to arrive to make their way in life.

I know this isn't mine but I want to tackle it anyway.

Because I'm evil....

Because the United States isn't a Confederacy, its a Federation. Which means that all states work together for a common goal. The south makes up for the fact in it has obscene future growth potential, sometime in the future the economies of the east coast will become to clunky to operate effectively and the will go to virgin territory to get some breathing space, especially since the US mindset wants to stay away from companies exporting their industries to less developed countries.

Actually I didn't give a counter arguement to that statement, but an excuse....oh well.....

Can I have a source for this, or are you basing this off of common conceptions of California and the "North"? Do you mean North East or are you including the Midwest in that as well?

How is an extremist Christian worse than an extremist Anti-Christian?

You seem to confuse revolutionary ideas with American Tradition, American Tradition was founded in the early 20th Century with WWI and WWII when the US decided to shift from an insular perspective to a global one. American Tradition became codified in the New Deal Era of FDR, which was radically different from the Libertarian views expressed by the founding fathers. The founding fathers wanted gov't formed like greek city-states, which is impossible outside of New England because of the sheer bulk of territory and numbers, FDR's socialist perspective determined that the wealthy should sacrifice to help the poor, (Tennessee Valley Authority, Meatless Tuesdays?, Rationing, etc.) which is part of american tradition.

Actually you said that one,

I was looking at aggregate violent crime, I'll take your word on the murder rate thing, but it seems you're more likely to get killed in the south but less likely to be the victim of any other violent crime

I think it depends on gender, I have a friend from the south who testifies domestic abuse is not only endemic, its socially acceptable. 

Heres a fun peice of evidence for the gun debate:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/books/05/11/freakonomics.ap/ - http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/books/05/11/freakonomics.ap/

I love this economist, he just studies with numbers not ideology.  A child is 100 times more likely to die in a house with a pool than a gun rack.  Dpeas anyone talk about banning pools? come on. 

He also links the legalizing of abortion to lower crime rates.  I love it!  Its about time someone just lokoed at the numbers.

Janus:

The south's only use may be to provide cannon fodder, but this argument wont work against me.  Those soldiers are not defending my ideals in te slightest, they are actually working against them most of the time.  Ideologically they are my enemy just as Al Qaida is, so I feel no debt of gratitude. 

And yes Americas major economic centers could change, but from the historical examples we have it is always a long term and wrenching change.  Rapid industrialization leaves massive scars and there are a few nations who had to geographically restructure their economy and their histories do not make it as easy as you make it sound.

And if your logic about socioeconomic class effecting crime rates was true then New York would ahve the highest crime rate in the nation, it does not, not by a long shot.  I have dwelled in both New York and one of Americas top 5 crime cities (not saying which) and I can tell you comparitevely New York is as safe as you can get.  Vermont and New Hampshire are also not as rural as popualraly potrayed, New Hampshire actually has alot of urban sprall and density, and yet its still the most libertarian and successful state in the country.

And I dont expect you to appreciate the dangers of theocrats, as I bet you personally are a believer in regulating peoples behavior based on your own principals, and its for precisely that reason such people in government are dangerous.  To regulate someoens behavior is the most evil thing a government can do, and I dedicate myself to either destroying these people in America or moving someplace where they do not exist.

I'd be lying if I said that it does not recieve more than it sends, but let's look at the reasons.  The over-whelming majority of southerners are just as productive of citizens as those of anywhere else, but the south and mid-west are much more rural than than the north-east and far-west (or at least more of the citizens farm for a living).  This is where the food that is on your tables comes from.  The world is made up of more than big cities and parks. 

People living off welfare and the sale of drugs is not a big problem in my part of Kentucky, but I know it is in some of the more southern states.  How is it our fault if they are trying to take advantage of the government and not get jobs?  Some people really do need welfare and if it wasn't abused it would be a great system, but I think that if you looked at those that actually lived off of it you would find that they vote democratic (not that matters but it is true). 

Also, the south never had one of those booms like California with its gold rush or the rush of immigration like the north-east had, and then what industrial might the south did possess was lost in the Civil War. 

Really if you look at like this you see that the north and south are like two sides of the same coin.  The south and mid-west are the conservatives and farmers, while the north-east and far-west are the liberals, industrial might, and technology of America.  It's like the system of checks and balances in the government, both sides are necessary to make the whole.  (doesn't mean we have to like each other though )

Oh yeah and your "theocrats" Tobodai, I say good ridance to them.  If you think we are all like that here then you're doing some major profiling.  I myself am agnostic.

The US has lower taxes than most of western Europe and Canada

i have lived in the US all my life and have never been told i wasn't allowed to do anything i wanted to. (i've never wanted to do anything against the law if that's what you're talking about, the laws are there for goods reasons)

ever heard of Benedict Arnold?

no taxes, little government control, letting people do anything they want... your ideology is anarchy then.

Tobodai, what they wanted was a say in what happened to them, you have that, they didn't.  Our taxes today are "taxes with representation".

oh yeah that Thomas Edison was a real radical let me tell you.

and this from the state that didn't even come to the first continental congress.  (not that i have anything against RI, quite the opposite)

You have very good arguments that I respect greatly since you worded them so well, its rare one can find a good debate on AE anymore. 

And yes your right about the checks and balances, Im certainly no friend of liberals and anyone on AE knows I loathe hippies with a passion.

But our ogvernment does indeed tax us without representing us, and does seek to control things it shouldnt.  I have worked at my slave job since I was 15, and until I was 18 I was taxed yet could not vote.  Additionally, voting rights can be revoked for the strangest reasons.  We also have to have our tax money fund the "PLease Touch Museum" and the Baseball hall of Fame, which only a few people enjoy.  Does the average American get to vote directly? Nope.  I come from a state with the two (almost) worst senators in the nation, and they make us fund the dumbest stuff through gas and property taxes, this is why I will move out of this wretched state once I graduate.

But now with the far rights tendrils reaching into society I have temporarily abandoned the economic arguments for the social ones.  Our government more than any other developed nation in the western hemisphere, tries to regulate social behavior, and I think its done for the sake of voters in the so claled red states.  This is where my resentment stems from.  I dont care if its illegal to have sex with a man in Texas or illegal to buy porno in some counties in Kansas...but I dont want those lawmakers putting those laws on the books of other areas that dont share such Talibanesque ideals.  Despite its increasingly socialist nature, the north and the west coast are th eonly part of the country resisting this takeover of predominantly southern and midwestern busybodies who waste goverment time preaching and interfering.  Thus for now, and likely in the future I wil be an ally of the so called blue states even if I dont agree with them on everything.  Like how Britain sided with France against Germany.  There is nothing..nothing...I hate more in this world than the regulation of social behavior by the state.  We as a society seem to think we need to do this because otherwise the soccer moms will get scared, but European nations with much lower crime rates dont regulate as much as we do.  I think the reason for Europe and Japans lower crime rates is not guns at all, but because they are far more rational in dealing iwth crime, and they dont seek to arreast their people for behavior that should remain the domain of the individual.

In social aspects, the Netherlands is the only true , free, and modern nation in the world.

  common ground, allehluah (don't think i spelled that right, but it doesn't bother me one bit on account that i am not religious at all)

I agree with you there, if you have to pay taxes then you should be able to vote.

I love baseball , and I believe in my conservative way that museum and such are important to America's heritage.

What state do you live in, if you don't mind me asking?

Far right is BAD, but far left is WORSE.  The far right and far left are both awful, but the thing is people are becoming more radical with the war on and choosing one side.  I do my best to remain the moderate-right that I pride myself in being.

Some social regulation is definitely good, and they are not "Talibanesque".  But of course it is always taken to far once it is started. *sighs*

Those "busybodies" are screwing up the Repub. party, but they don't hold all that much power.  Please don't say Bush is one of these because he is not.

France and Britain were fairly good allies by the time of WWI. (though i know that's off point and do know what you mean)

you've got to remember that japan and most western european countries have much less culture friction than we do.

there is a point when one is too free, and though the Netherlands have not reached it, they are also the closest modern nation to it.

There is no such thing as being too free.  Why America controls the world is not part of any military virtue or political ideal, but through economic power.  Why we have so much power is because, in the economic sphere we are so free. I think the same will happen socially if we free that up too.  The explosion of arts and creativity that societies often experience usually happens when the people are most free in more ways than just with their purse strings.

And there have been societies in the past far mroe free than the Netherlands that have withstood for periods and often did not collapse from the inside.  I really dont think one can ever be too free, as long as the smart rule the dumb which through pure darwinistic excersises is pretty much bound to happen one way or the other eventually.

And yes, there was a time when the far left in America was more dangerous than the far right, in the 30's and 60's most notably, but that time is long gone now.  Now the right including the extremists has an enormous amount of power that is only stopped not by any pittance of moderation in government, but by its own voters who never seem as extreme as their congressmen are (almost).

The elft is like a castrated puppy, useless and non-threatening.  Only scaring people because media pundits with a seige mentality always convince 400 pound factory workers and truckers that they somehow control everything when in fact they control nothing.

And yes I consider Bush very far right socially, far left economically, at least in spending.  The man spends more than a yenta at an aristocratic leathergoods shop.  His social pollicies are reprehensible, his expansion of governmetn powers are orwellian (especially if your an Arab) and his views on stem cells and other issues doom our nation to lose power in the long run to countries with more open policies.  I think Bush is just bascially pro-government, and thus is my mortal enemy aside from a few of his even worse appointees.  Im all for cutting taxes, but who is dumb enough to cut them in a war??? Thats got to be the first time that ever happened.  I also think his policies lead to a cycle.  Do things that make Arabs angry and joind terrorist groups, use the increasing threats of those terrorits groups to increase his own power, and use that power to re-mold society in his own image.  Like Emperor Palpatine but no where near as cool or articulate.

And you can guess which state Im from with these hints:

reddest of the blue states

biggest electoral value of any state thats was on the fence in the election aside from Florida

has the hometown of a great man and founder of America as its biggest city

has alot of pretzels

has 2 bad senators, one for spending more than any other senator, and one for just being an ass who belongs in the 13th century

has one of those fake, manufactured capitals no one will ever go to in leu of a much better more famous city

lots of forests and woods

a really big battle happened here that determined the fate of a really big war

we only ever had one president from our state elected, and he was probably the worst president aside from jackson America ever had.

cmon its not hard

Illinois?

you got it, and dont forget Hershey and its vaunted, cyclopean, and eldritch park!  The only park enjoyed by the mindless god Azathoth and his amorphous piping minions. 

Extra points if you can guess what author that post sounds most like, and no, they are not from Pennsylvania.  And man, I should have put wierd religious sects (but Amish or Quakers specifically would have given it away).

Actually I believe that people should be given choices between all options rather than having those options thrusted on them. Regulation is required so people do not make poor decisions, however people should feel sorry when they do make poor decisions instead of blaming someone who is not responsible.

On my politics, since this is a south north debate. It's funny to think that had I lived 150 years ago, I would support the confederacy, for their states rights initiative, yet I would fight for the union, due to my love of my home city.

I agree somewhat there.  I support the right to sucession and think America would be better off without the south, but I would have fought for perserve the union anyway because..fighting for the south is just not an option for me.

However most of the time states rights, though good in principle, seem to do more harm than good.  They are used as excuses to get away with opression such as Jim Crowe laws more than they are used for anything else.

Though recently that has changed, now that the central governmetn is more evil than mkost states the process seems to be going into reversal.

theres a shirt that says the Right to Bear Arms and has attached bear arms you can year, all fuzzy ands tuff.

Although the whole eastern side of my state is blue, the part I live in is so wierd I have no idea how to classify it.  The town (good part) is about 80% homosexual, I kid you not.  Most famous yet not large east coast abode for gays in the country (or at least biggest population).  Then outside of the town all the disgustingly wealthy Bush voters live in mansions and have Guatemen slave labor fix their lawns.  This is the boring part, but with our new house I live there now.  Stil I can walk to the town from here and hang out in the medieval armor shop so its not bad.