Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great


Sorry folks, I'm up late and actually surprised to see this thread still not locked.

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

My wife's job ensures that she is very close to those that are on the government dole and the lack of drive among many and a complacency to live with what they are given, never striving for more, is troublesome. I shouldn't have to work so hard to pay for people who refuse to work, and yes there are MANY, so that I can pay for them to fill up on junk food and expensive meats, utilize a free phone, tear up property and homes where they have no vested interest while they demand things such as free internet. Get a job if you can work.

For instance, a consumer of my wife has a son that is 43, older than we are, who 'can't' find a job after 4 years of 'searching' for one. Yet he spends his day on mommy's internet playing games. My wife suggested that he try McDonalds as they are usually hiring. His response? It is below him to work there. Soaking the govt (me) for $300 a month in food stamps and hitting the local food pantries, basically stealing from those who really need it evidently is not below him though.

ORIGINAL: mgarnett
people who, under the new legislation, would no longer be permitted to own or carry a firearm.

ORIGINAL: mgarnett
Yes, criminals can and do find ways to buy guns, but shooting related offenses are very very rare here

ORIGINAL: mgarnett
These arguments will go nowhere and are fruitless because they seek to deflect the issue rather than address the issue.

ORIGINAL: mgarnett
I truly feel sorry for law abiding citizens that the US has ended up in this position.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: mgarnett
people who, under the new legislation, would no longer be permitted to own or carry a firearm.

The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country. When you accept a governments right to take away any natural right, you've started down a dangerous path indeed. History has shown time and again almost any government that had such power over its people eventually leads to horrific tragedy.

Restricting freedom may seem fine when the people in power seem trustworthy, but once the governments right to restrict freedoms is part of the power structure someone always comes along to abuse it, it's simply a matter of time.

A good example would be the laws passed by the Weimer Republic that were intended to disarm the Nazis and Communists were later used by the Nazis against their enemies when they were taking full power in Germany. Free people should always weigh what they will or can lose when a freedom is taken away, even if it seems like a good reason to take it at the time.

ORIGINAL: mgarnett
Yes, criminals can and do find ways to buy guns, but shooting related offenses are very very rare here

I've been to Australia twice and made many friends in the law enforcement community down there (I'm retired police). All I can say from my talks with them is there is simply no comparison to the type and level of crime in the two countries. We have gangs here that require their prospective members to go out and kill some random innocent person just to get in the gang. The gangs in Oakland would make a game of it by going out and driving crazy on the freeway. The first person to flash their lights at them would be followed home and shot. I personally worked three different cases like that. Your only chance in an encounter like that is if you're personally armed, otherwise you're dead.

Some of the bigger prison gangs here are almost Para-military organizations, so disarming people here would leave them wide open to abuse from those gangs. Even with an already armed populace, crimes in the merchant districts of our big cities involving forced extortion and protection rackets run rampant, especially in Chinatowns where there is a cultural aversion to going to the police when trouble comes knocking. These same organized extortion gangs would gladly move their extortion rackets into dense population concentrations and rob people in their homes if they didn't have to fear a shotgun meeting them at the front door as they were trying to kick it down.

ORIGINAL: mgarnett
These arguments will go nowhere and are fruitless because they seek to deflect the issue rather than address the issue.

You completely missed the point if that's what you think. Prohibition was tried and failed miserably. Alcohol still kills far more innocent people daily than gun violence ever will, but it is far better to leave it a lawful commodity then to outlaw it again.

Prohibition turned millions of decent law abiding people into criminals overnight and turned those people into easy victims for organized crime to fleece because they could no longer avail themselves of the protection of law enforcement. Prohibition also enriched the gangs by making booze an expensive commodity. And let's not forget the explosion of violence from the gang wars involving attempted control of the booze. You'd see similar results if you outlawed guns here.

ORIGINAL: mgarnett
I truly feel sorry for law abiding citizens that the US has ended up in this position.

The position of freedom? Nothing wrong with that. 99.9% of law abiding gun owners never use a gun in a criminal act, it's the law breakers who use them in crimes right now, so outlawing them simply disarms the law abiding citizens and leaves them vulnerable to the criminals.

Jim

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

And then when you have no police to protect you from criminals, you form vigilante squads to patrol and protect your homes from... criminals and... whatever...

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

No such thing as an "assault weapon" wish people would quit using that name. I hit you with a base ball bat, the bat became an assault weapon.

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

mgarnett - your post pretty much sums up my thoughts from here in the UK. I think there is a big cultural difference, I just don't get the guns = freedom argument.

Jim D Burns - informative response particularly about the gang culture in the US. Though following on from the above I just don't see how "The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country". I live in what I consider a free country and there are lots of things my government (in its representation of the population of the UK) doesn't permit me to do including wandering around with a loaded (or even unloaded) firearm. I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US. Maybe we in the UK have a greater inherent trust in our Parliament than US citizens have for their government, again maybe just one of those cultural differences.

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

mgarnett - your post pretty much sums up my thoughts from here in the UK. I think there is a big cultural difference, I just don't get the guns = freedom argument.

Jim D Burns - informative response particularly about the gang culture in the US. Though following on from the above I just don't see how "The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country". I live in what I consider a free country and there are lots of things my government (in its representation of the population of the UK) doesn't permit me to do including wandering around with a loaded (or even unloaded) firearm. I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US.

But this is not an issue about knives, or schools, it's an issue about guns

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

mgarnett - your post pretty much sums up my thoughts from here in the UK. I think there is a big cultural difference, I just don't get the guns = freedom argument.

Jim D Burns - informative response particularly about the gang culture in the US. Though following on from the above I just don't see how "The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country". I live in what I consider a free country and there are lots of things my government (in its representation of the population of the UK) doesn't permit me to do including wandering around with a loaded (or even unloaded) firearm. I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US. Maybe we in the UK have a greater inherent trust in our Parliament than US citizens have for their government, again maybe just one of those cultural differences.

In response to your last comment:

I suppose our skepticism of government in the US may be a carryover from when we were colonies of Britain.
Our Founding Fathers distrusted Parliament and Britain because they felt they were not treated the same equally to British living in Britain. Many came from Britain to America (or their forefather did). They did not receive representation in Parliament. They had British troops quartered in their homes. Their right to trade with other countries was limited. They asked for the rights that other Englishmen enjoyed; but they felt that their concerns were ignored. They grew to distrust Parliament specificly and government in general.

This is why when the Founders set up our government, they set up all sorts of protections from the government for the people.
They set up three equal branches of federal government, each with the ability to check one another.
They had a federal, and state governments, each with their own powers and responsibilities.
And, most importantly, within our Constitution, the set up a Bill of Rights, which enumerated the rights of the people, on which government could not infringe.
And one of these rights was the right to bear arms. That would provide another check on government should it unjustly infringe on the rights of the people.
The likelihood that armed revolution would be necessary is remote, but you might call it a check of last resort.

And while the Founding Fathers died several hundred years ago, their distrust in government, clearly demonstrated in the system of government and checks and balances they set up, has almost become ingrained into our political DNA

I do not say this as a criticism of your or the UK, I say it as my personal understanding of American's distrust in government.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

mgarnett - your post pretty much sums up my thoughts from here in the UK. I think there is a big cultural difference, I just don't get the guns = freedom argument.

Jim D Burns - informative response particularly about the gang culture in the US. Though following on from the above I just don't see how "The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country". I live in what I consider a free country and there are lots of things my government (in its representation of the population of the UK) doesn't permit me to do including wandering around with a loaded (or even unloaded) firearm. I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US.

You should check your privilege:
fb.asp?m=3246182&key=

fb.asp?m=3246210&key=

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

mgarnett - your post pretty much sums up my thoughts from here in the UK. I think there is a big cultural difference, I just don't get the guns = freedom argument.

Jim D Burns - informative response particularly about the gang culture in the US. Though following on from the above I just don't see how "The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country". I live in what I consider a free country and there are lots of things my government (in its representation of the population of the UK) doesn't permit me to do including wandering around with a loaded (or even unloaded) firearm. I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US.

You should check your privilege:
fb.asp?m=3246182&key=

fb.asp?m=3246210&key=

Not disagreeing that there is still gun violence in the UK just that my perception is that I am more free from the threat of violence than I think I would be in the US. Maybe I've just been watching too much of Sons of Anarchy recently [:)]

ORIGINAL: BASB

I guess what all my waffle is about is moderation, and gradual culture change. I'm not suggesting for one moment to ban firearms or hunting or target shooting etc etc, but for the life of me I can't see the need for every citizen have 5 shotguns, 4 rifles, 3 sub machine guns,2 semi automatic pistols and a cocked revolver in the pear tree.
Over the past 40 years the US has changed its attitude when it comes to racism, perhaps in the next 40 years your country can do the same and change the gun culture, I'm sure all citizens will benefit if there is only 150 million firearms instead of the 300 million you have today!

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

My wife's job ensures that she is very close to those that are on the government dole and the lack of drive among many and a complacency to live with what they are given, never striving for more, is troublesome. I shouldn't have to work so hard to pay for people who refuse to work, and yes there are MANY, so that I can pay for them to fill up on junk food and expensive meats, utilize a free phone, tear up property and homes where they have no vested interest while they demand things such as free internet. Get a job if you can work.

For instance, a consumer of my wife has a son that is 43, older than we are, who 'can't' find a job after 4 years of 'searching' for one. Yet he spends his day on mommy's internet playing games. My wife suggested that he try McDonalds as they are usually hiring. His response? It is below him to work there. Soaking the govt (me) for $300 a month in food stamps and hitting the local food pantries, basically stealing from those who really need it evidently is not below him though.

It doesn't really matter whenever he wants to get a job or not. McDonald's job may be "below him" to him, but it's not like McDonald's would actually hire him. "Usually hiring" means "a position is free in one of the restaurants from time to time" with the "but we got hundreds of applications" part omitted so that they'd get even more applications to choose from.

It's funny how many pretend employers there are nowadays. For example stores and restaurants usually keep job announcements on their fronts for a few months after they have already hired someone on that position and continue to collect tens or hundreds of CVs in that time. Additionally, employment agencies display outdated job offers to get CVs too (why do they even need so many CVs anyway?), government unemployment offices keep tens of outdated job offers on their page, one of the most annoying things that I have encountered is companies posting a job offer and then when one calls, it turns out that they aren't actually hiring, they just want to collect CVs for some time in future when they will have a free position. Tens, hundreds of CVs.

Then there are interviews whose purpose is to eliminate people who aren't good at bullshitting from getting any work.

Getting a job nowadays has nothing to do with wanting to get a job and availability of jobs is illusionary.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

I rather go down free and in poverty than allow my government to take one more freedom.