Gun Control in the US

[Hiro Protagonist]

"These same people don't realize that we're already bordering on a police state."

 

 

You should realise most people in America already live in a police state, and are completely unaware of it. There is little difference between tyranny in governments, no matter where it may be. For example, the people of Poland:

• cannot drive without licenses
• cannot work where they choose
• are required to register firearms and cars
• cannot build on their land without government approval
• are compelled to buy insurance
• must show identification papers upon demand
• have a portion of their wages taken
• have ports of entry which compel them to stop, clear and pay duties
• are subject to searches on their highways
• may be arbitrarily taken into custody and fingerprinted without court order

 

The list goes on. It makes no difference where you may be located; citizens of any country who are so constrained are not free, but living under tyranny. It matters not whether we think we have it somehow "better" than the Poles. Both systems are tyrannical in nature, the only difference being the degree of tyranny applied and the understanding of the system by the citizens. The Poles understand that they live in tyranny, while Americans have been convinced that it can't happen here, even though it has already come to pass. We recognize tyranny in foreign countries, but in our own, we refer to it as "law and order." But a police state by any other name is still a police state.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

"These same people don't realize that we're already bordering on a police state."

 

 

You should realise most people in America already live in a police state, and are completely unaware of it. There is little difference between tyranny in governments, no matter where it may be. For example, the people of Poland:

 

• cannot drive without licenses
• cannot work where they choose
• are required to register firearms and cars
• cannot build on their land without government approval
• are compelled to buy insurance
• must show identification papers upon demand
• have a portion of their wages taken
• have ports of entry which compel them to stop, clear and pay duties
• are subject to searches on their highways
• may be arbitrarily taken into custody and fingerprinted without court order

The list goes on. It makes no difference where you may be located; citizens of any country who are so constrained are not free, but living under tyranny. It matters not whether we think we have it somehow "better" than the Poles. Both systems are tyrannical in nature, the only difference being the degree of tyranny applied and the understanding of the system by the citizens. The Poles understand that they live in tyranny, while Americans have been convinced that it can't happen here, even though it has already come to pass. We recognize tyranny in foreign countries, but in our own, we refer to it as "law and order." But a police state by any other name is still a police state.

Somehow I think that Americans are a bit better off than Russia(where you can be imprisoned for public demonstration) or China(where the government controls everything). Unless I missed the part where some tea baggers went to prison or where my Internet is censored. Edited February 1, 2013 by KaineParker

[BruceVC]

Something occurred to me last night, a huge point that the gun lobby keeps making that is banning semi-automatic weapons and having more restrictive checks before trying to get a gun won't help " as criminals don't follow the law anyway"

 

South Africa, IMO, is a much more violent country than the USA. We have about 50 murders a day and other high levels of crime. Yet despite our violent culture we have never had a shooting like Sandy Hook or Columbine. Why is that? It got me thinking

 

We have many people prepared to commit crime and take a life but those criminals are driven by desire to enrich themselves and break the law as they have a material objective, but they aren't going to go into a school and shoot kids. They are criminals but they aren't mentally unbalanced. The people that are mentally unstable, and we also have loads of them, don't have access to guns and can't get them. In South Africa its almost impossible to get semi-automatic weapons. 

 

So what is the corollary to  this? By banning semi-automatic weapons in the USA you won't stop criminals getting these guns but you will make it almost impossible for the average or mentally insane person to get these weapons. And those are the people committing these horrific shootings, not your average citizen

 

 

I know, I know I'm a genius. I am surprised one has considered my wise words before?

[Luridis]

@AGX I agree with your points, but I have to correct you on the 2nd Amendment.

 

It actually says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". You missed two commas, whose inclusion really turn the amendment into a garbled cluster****. You were closer than most right-wingers though, they seem to be allergic to "regulated".

 

On libertarians: I think it is funny as hell how they talk like they are the most patriotic and loyal 'mericans EVAR, but end up agreeing with Russian propaganda most of the time. Any one else see a bit of humor in that.

 

My fault for not quantifying my statement... I'm close to a Libertarian, but don't quite fit into that mold. I thought the whole bit about me not being behind 9-11 conspiracies would have made that clear. Since I don't know what the name of the boat I'm actually in is called then lets see if you can tell me.

 

I am considerate of men-in-power conspiracies that are plausible (i.e. price fixing, unimaginable legislative influence), but don't label everyone in office the next Adolf Hitler. I'm against wildly unfounded and highly improbable conspiracy theories. I'm for gay rights and marriage. I'm for equal opportunity, but against excessive entitlement for any group of people. I'm for protecting borders, but against that being a used as a vehicle for racism. I'm pro soldier, but against foreign wars. I'm not socialist, but I do think those with excess should cover more of the nations operating costs. I'm for freedom of all religion, including the right to not practice one. I'm for protectionist economics, even more so with the effect that globalization has on people of countries without labor protections. I'm for trial by jury, I'm also for fully informing jurors of their common-law rights (nullification). I'm against arbitration as that system is so horribly stacked in favor of corporations. I'm against corporations as an entity of influence in our legal system; corporations typically have employees, most of which already have the right to vote. I don't believe in a racial binary, as such leads to a racial divide. (i.e. no minority/majority or black/white) Not every person with dark skin is African, nor is every person with light skin Angelo-Saxon. I'm for unions, but against using them as an extortion vehicle.

 

So, I don't know where exactly I fit into that great political cog, but I do know that I've never voted a party ticket in my life.

[Hiro Protagonist]

"Somehow I think that Americans are a bit better off than Russia(where you can be imprisoned for public demonstration) or China(where the government controls everything). Unless I missed the part where some tea baggers went to prison or where my Internet is censored."

 

Obviously what I posted went straight over your head. Not surprisingly. The fact is that you do live in a police state outlined in the points I mentioned and comes down to the degree of how it's implemented.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Hiro Protagonist

[BruceVC]

"These same people don't realize that we're already bordering on a police state."

 

 

You should realise most people in America already live in a police state, and are completely unaware of it. There is little difference between tyranny in governments, no matter where it may be. For example, the people of Poland:

• cannot drive without licenses
• cannot work where they choose
• are required to register firearms and cars
• cannot build on their land without government approval
• are compelled to buy insurance
• must show identification papers upon demand
• have a portion of their wages taken
• have ports of entry which compel them to stop, clear and pay duties
• are subject to searches on their highways
• may be arbitrarily taken into custody and fingerprinted without court order

 

The list goes on. It makes no difference where you may be located; citizens of any country who are so constrained are not free, but living under tyranny. It matters not whether we think we have it somehow "better" than the Poles. Both systems are tyrannical in nature, the only difference being the degree of tyranny applied and the understanding of the system by the citizens. The Poles understand that they live in tyranny, while Americans have been convinced that it can't happen here, even though it has already come to pass. We recognize tyranny in foreign countries, but in our own, we refer to it as "law and order." But a police state by any other name is still a police state.

 

 

But none of these points, IMO, constitute a Police State..seriously. These are normal rules in any civilized, structured Democracy. You need all the points to ensure a country can function. If you don't have these types of rules then your country will end up like places in Africa, and trust me that is much worse

[Hiro Protagonist]

"But none of these points, IMO, constitute a Police State..seriously. These are normal rules in any civilized, structured Democracy. You need all the points to ensure a country can function. If you don't have these types of rules then your country will end up like places in Africa, and trust me that is much worse"

 

In your opinion doesn't mean anything against facts. Citizens of any country who are so constrained are not free. That's what it comes down to. We call it Law and Order in our countries and then point to other contries and call it tyranny. However, if both countries apply the same points, it's the same. Both systems are tyrannical in nature, the only difference being the degree of tyranny applied and the understanding of the system by the citizens.

 

There would be laws in say Australia which Australians are used to and the overwhelmiing majority of the population have no problems with, whereas citizens from other countries would absolutely balk at and say it's tyranny, taking away your rights, no freedoms, etc.

 

For instance, Australia is only 1 of 10 countries in the world that has enforced compulsory voting and if you don't vote, you can expect a fine in the mail unless you have a satisfactory answer why you didn't vote which is up to the Australian Electoral Commision to decide if your answer will be accepted. If you don't pay the fine, then your drivers License can be suspended. And many people have had their drivers license suspended. If a police officer pulls you over for a Random Breath test and checks your license, sees there's an outstanding voting fine, he will suspend your driver's license on the spot. Many people have reported this happening to them on the internet. The common response is, 'your fault for not voting, idiot'. 'Should have paid the fine, numb nuts'.

 

The Australian Electoral Commission's computers are also linked to many other Government computers. So if you change your address and do the same with your drivers license, the AEC will know and send a letter to your new address to confirm you are living there.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Hiro Protagonist

[Calax]

"But none of these points, IMO, constitute a Police State..seriously. These are normal rules in any civilized, structured Democracy. You need all the points to ensure a country can function. If you don't have these types of rules then your country will end up like places in Africa, and trust me that is much worse"

 

In your opinion doesn't mean anything against facts. Citizens of any country who are so constrained are not free. That's what it comes down to. We call it Law and Order in our countries and then point to other contries and call it tyranny. However, if both countries apply the same points, it's the same. Both systems are tyrannical in nature, the only difference being the degree of tyranny applied and the understanding of the system by the citizens.

I think, under your definition, any government would be labeled "Tyrannical", except for an anarchic one. If we want to play a bit of semantics, Governments are the worlds largest land lords, and we're all just tenants on their land. We want to build a house, but we have to get permission from the owner. If we don't respect that boundary, then they wouldn't put their weight behind the claims of ownership we have for our property and equipment. After all, one guy saying "This is mine!" has hardly ever been a compelling argument for property ownership. Having the government endorse that claim is what realistically makes it stick (or the strength to defend it against ALL comers).

 

The point of Tyranny, to me, is when the government begins to actively harm it's citizens. And I don't mean harm their sense of entitlement, I mean "Syrian boss shooting up his citizens because they won't get in line" harm. Our government has slowly been approaching that (although it appears to have backed off after some of the more spectacular Occupy Wall Street breakups), but it's never started shooting it's own people... on purpose.

[Valsuelm]

'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.'

 

- Goethe

[BruceVC]

"But none of these points, IMO, constitute a Police State..seriously. These are normal rules in any civilized, structured Democracy. You need all the points to ensure a country can function. If you don't have these types of rules then your country will end up like places in Africa, and trust me that is much worse"

 

In your opinion doesn't mean anything against facts. Citizens of any country who are so constrained are not free. That's what it comes down to. We call it Law and Order in our countries and then point to other contries and call it tyranny. However, if both countries apply the same points, it's the same. Both systems are tyrannical in nature, the only difference being the degree of tyranny applied and the understanding of the system by the citizens.

 

There would be laws in say Australia which Australians are used to and the overwhelmiing majority of the population have no problems with, whereas citizens from other countries would absolutely balk at and say it's tyranny, taking away your rights, no freedoms, etc.

 

For instance, Australia is only 1 of 10 countries in the world that has enforced compulsory voting and if you don't vote, you can expect a fine in the mail unless you have a satisfactory answer why you didn't vote which is up to the Australian Electoral Commision to decide if your answer will be accepted. If you don't pay the fine, then your drivers License can be suspended. And many people have had their drivers license suspended. If a police officer pulls you over for a Random Breath test and checks your license, sees there's an outstanding voting fine, he will suspend your driver's license on the spot. Many people have reported this happening to them on the internet. The common response is, 'your fault for not voting, idiot'. 'Should have paid the fine, numb nuts'.

 

The Australian Electoral Commission's computers are also linked to many other Government computers. So if you change your address and do the same with your drivers license, the AEC will know and send a letter to your new address to confirm you are living there.

 

 

Don't get me wrong I consider Australia a "police state", your laws are far more restrictive than other Western countries.

 

Thats one of the main reasons I haven't considered immigrating there. I know you have an excellent quality of life and good social services but I am not prepared to submit myself to what I consider are your unreasonable laws. Your example in the post just vindicates my opinion, I mean how can you force someone to vote?

[alanschu]

 

In your opinion doesn't mean anything against facts. Citizens of any country who are so constrained are not free. That's what it comes down to. We call it Law and Order in our countries and then point to other contries and call it tyranny. However, if both countries apply the same points, it's the same. Both systems are tyrannical in nature, the only difference being the degree of tyranny applied and the understanding of the system by the citizens.

 

Would this mean that any level of social contract indicates a police state?

 

 

Note that tyranny requires oppression, and oppression is the exercise of power in a cruel and unjust manner.  As such, for something to be tyrannical the people must consider it tyrannical.  Do citizens of any democracy feel that requiring driving licenses is an example of oppressive behaviour by the government, defined as an exercise of the government's power in a cruel, and unjust manner?

[obyknven]

But none of these points, IMO, constitute a Police State..seriously. These are normal rules in any civilized, structured Democracy. You need all the points to ensure a country can function. If you don't have these types of rules then your country will end up like places in Africa, and trust me that is much worse

Stop using term "Democracy" for representative Republics. They are completely different. Modern "democracies" originating not in Athenian democracy but in European feudalism and culminating in liberal capitalism, the major milestones, like Magna Carta and 1688, mark the ascent of the propertied classes. In this case, it is not a question of peasants liberating themselves from the political domination of their overlords but lords themselves asserting their independent powers against the claims of monarchy. This is the origin of modern constitutional principles, ideas of limited government, the separation of powers, and so on: principles which have displaced the social implications of 'rule by the demos' such as balance of power between rich and poor, as the central criterion of "democracy".

 

If citizenship is the constitutive concept of ancient democracy, the founding principle of the other variety is, perhaps, lordship. The Athenian citizen claimed to be masterless, a servant to no mortal man. He owed no service or deference to any lord, nor did he waste his labour to enrich a tyrant by his toil. The freedom, eleutheria, entailed by his citizenship was the freedom of the demos from his lordship. Magna Carta, in contrast, was a charter not of a masterless demos but of masters themselves, asserting feudal privileges and freedom of lordship against both Crown and popular multitude, just as the liberty of 1688 represented the privilege of propertied gentlemen, their freedom to dispose of their property and servants at will.

 

In true democracies no lawyers or other intermediaries between society and power exists , no Machinery of government exists, people vote on policy initiatives directly. In Athens, there was no such clear division between 'state' and 'civil society', no distinct and autonomous 'economy', not even a conception of the state as distinct from the community of citizens, no state of 'Athens' or 'Attica', only 'the Athenians'.

 

Or look at modern military forces. They are most important part of government machine and the are pure totalitarian. Meanwhile in true democracies army voting too, and elect (delegate) generals for execute own decisions. Examples of this you can find in Anabasis (Xenophon).

 

Actually, true democracies exists now, but they are not part of Western "democratic" states. And West can blame them as "terrorists" in any moment.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/andrew/zap_asr.html

[HoonDing]

Uh-huh.

[BruceVC]

 

In your opinion doesn't mean anything against facts. Citizens of any country who are so constrained are not free. That's what it comes down to. We call it Law and Order in our countries and then point to other contries and call it tyranny. However, if both countries apply the same points, it's the same. Both systems are tyrannical in nature, the only difference being the degree of tyranny applied and the understanding of the system by the citizens.

 

Would this mean that any level of social contract indicates a police state?

 

 

Note that tyranny requires oppression, and oppression is the exercise of power in a cruel and unjust manner.  As such, for something to be tyrannical the people must consider it tyrannical.  Do citizens of any democracy feel that requiring driving licenses is an example of oppressive behaviour by the government, defined as an exercise of the government's power in a cruel, and unjust manner?

 

How does someone argue with such irrefutable logic? And to answer the question "no", no reasonable person should consider that oppressive in any form. Good and convincing post

[Malcador]

Good job, cheerleader.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

"Somehow I think that Americans are a bit better off than Russia(where you can be imprisoned for public demonstration) or China(where the government controls everything). Unless I missed the part where some tea baggers went to prison or where my Internet is censored."

 

Obviously what I posted went straight over your head. Not surprisingly. The fact is that you do live in a police state outlined in the points I mentioned and comes down to the degree of how it's implemented.

Obviously what I posted went straight over your head. Not surprisingly. The fact is that you see bogeymen around evey corner and make mountains out of molehills. Have fun with the fear porn! Edited February 1, 2013 by KaineParker

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

In your opinion doesn't mean anything against facts. Citizens of any country who are so constrained are not free. That's what it comes down to. We call it Law and Order in our countries and then point to other contries and call it tyranny. However, if both countries apply the same points, it's the same. Both systems are tyrannical in nature, the only difference being the degree of tyranny applied and the understanding of the system by the citizens.

 

Would this mean that any level of social contract indicates a police state?

To certain Individuals, yes.

 

To the average person, no.

 

Note that tyranny requires oppression, and oppression is the exercise of power in a cruel and unjust manner.  As such, for something to be tyrannical the people must consider it tyrannical.  Do citizens of any democracy feel that requiring driving licenses is an example of oppressive behaviour by the government, defined as an exercise of the government's power in a cruel, and unjust manner?

To some people, ANYTHNG the government does is tyrannical.

[Hurlshort]

When the government restricts something that is a clear and present danger, that serves the best interests of the people.  Driving is a perfect example, I would definitely not be comfortable getting on the road knowing there are tons of people without licenses.  Driving is dangerous, when I put my kids in the car I want to know that the people driving around me are qualified.  Does that offer me 100% protection?  Of course not, but it is tremendously better than no protection at all.

[alanschu]

To certain Individuals, yes.

 

Sorry, I disagree with the idea that there's both micro and macro perspectives of tyranny.

 

If you get one person that is all "boo I hate our government," that is not a reflection of the government being tyrannical.

 

Tyranny requires some level of large scale consensus.  Some guy that goes "I can't murder people without the government getting pissy!  What a tyrannical hell hole I live in" is a poor indicator as to whether or not the government is believed to be tyrannical.  Social contracts exist for a reason.

 

The word becomes meaningless if someone wants to thump their chest and go "we live in a tyrannical police state" because they're an anarchist and the overwhelming amount of people that live in said state completely disagree with him.  It's straight up fear mongering because these people realize that it's the places like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that were police states, and if they can convince people that we're just like those states, then they can help gain momentum for their movement.

Edited February 1, 2013 by alanschu

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

To certain Individuals, yes.

 

Sorry, I disagree with the idea that there's both micro and macro perspectives of tyranny.

 

If you get one person that is all "boo I hate our government," that is not a reflection of the government being tyrannical.

 

Tyranny requires some level of large scale consensus.  Some guy that goes "I can't murder people without the government getting pissy!  What a tyrannical hell hole I live in" is a poor indicator as to whether or not the government is believed to be tyrannical.  Social contracts exist for a reason.

 

The word becomes meaningless if someone wants to thump their chest and go "we live in a tyrannical police state" because they're an anarchist and the overwhelming amount of people that live in said state completely disagree with him.  It's straight up fear mongering because these people realize that it's the places like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that were police states, and if they can convince people that we're just like those states, then they can help gain momentum for their movement.

I was commenting on the perception of tyranny from the point of individuals.

 

A better worded version would be:

 

To some individuals the government existing is a form of tyranny, and anything it does is in some way oppressing them.

 

To the average person, the government is not tyrannical until it starts actively harming citizens, strictly limiting rights, etc.

 

The former are wrong.

[Valsuelm]

When the government restricts something that is a clear and present danger, that serves the best interests of the people.  Driving is a perfect example, I would definitely not be comfortable getting on the road knowing there are tons of people without licenses.  Driving is dangerous, when I put my kids in the car I want to know that the people driving around me are qualified.  Does that offer me 100% protection?  Of course not, but it is tremendously better than no protection at all.

 

 

Obtaining a driver's license in any state is trivial in regards to driving prowess. Licensing drivers does little to protect folks on the road and a lot to allow the government serious leverage on someone's life. There a licenseless drivers in the many millions in our nation, especially out west where there are more illegal aliens. The roads are no more unsafe out there than they are in the east where there aren't as many drivers without licenses.

 

The concept that requiring licenses of drivers make the roads safer is an illusionary concept.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

Stop using term "Democracy" for representative Republics. 

 

There are few signs as tell tale that someone is brainwashed or uninformed than someone using that term.

[Hurlshort]

Millions of licenseless drivers?  No, try again.  Most of the illegal immigrant drivers stick to the backroads and drive super slow to avoid ever getting pulled over, by the way.  I live in an agricultural community in California, I see them quite regularly.  But on my typical commute to work and back on the freeway, I'm dealing with licensed and insured folks at a very high rate.  

 

I agree a license doesn't equate to driving skill, but it does create a system of accountability.  There is no reason that guns can't have the same accountability.

[Malcador]

And what testing do you want for this license ?

[Calax]

 

Stop using term "Democracy" for representative Republics.

 

There are few signs as tell tale that someone is brainwashed or uninformed than someone using that term.