BF2S Forums America love it or leave?

That's one - well, three - fat tapestries you've got there. Good business, no?

Not,

You have the insight of a person who has studied Pol Sci

or

You read a lot!

Good comment and yes the sig rules.

i think alot of kiddies who complain about not having any rights in this country should take a hike and live in a thirld world country for a week.

then see what they think.

and Liberials, conservatives' they all are BS


we need a new reform in this country

beerface702 wrote:

i think alot of kiddies who complain about not having any rights in this country should take a hike and live in a thirld world country for a week.

I agree with you strongly to a point. The quality of life here is tremendous, and we have so many rights that we should be thankful for that it makes you wonder how some of these people could possibly talk about not being free.

The thing that the educated people who say things like this are really worried about, is losing those rights. They acknowledge that they're there now, but they can see them slowly slipping away. Patriot Act anyone?

Any time I bring that up, I get a "You don't want to protect our country! If you're not a terrorist you don't have anything to worry about!" so let me put that to rest immediately. That's true, now. But every liberty you take away and justify, the more comfortable people get with having their liberties watered down or removed. And what for? So the goverment can spy on calls to foreign countries? I'm sorry if I'm not comfortable with just giving away my private information for the sake of "security" when so far there's been nothing I feel is worth mentioning that's come from intel gathered from the Patriot Act. So really all we've ended up with is a few less rights for a few more people. It's a very small step, dont' get me wrong, but it's a step in a direction that I don't like. And I'm afraid that we'll let this go on too long before finally speaking out against it...that is if we haven't let that right go by then.

phnxfrhwk wrote:

Absolutely on all points. This country needs restructuring. Like after the revolution laws and bills were put into effect due to a common need. Now it just seems like these are trying to get passed through due to some personal agenda, or someone is just trying to make money off of the deal. What I don't understand is how the people of congress and senate make so much money and all they want to do is vote in a pay raise. To sit and argue with each other. Personally I think that it should be a volunteer thing. People should do it because they love America (this goes for both sides) and not be greedy about it.

Care to give some specific examples? Debating effectively usually involves following an assertion with some kind of proof.

JOJOBA wrote:

i saw a bumper sticker somewhere that said, "an armed society is a polite society" i think thats what it said.  some people dont understand that taking away guns will do absolutely nothing, cause the law abiding citizens that have guns dont use them in crime, where the criminals use guns no matter what, taking guns away from everyone wont take guns from the villans, cause they will find a way to get more.

think again Britain pretty much banned guns, you didn't. The US gun homicde rate per capita is 37 times higher. lets see, top 3 gun-death countries all allow guns to be owned by their citizens. You say you need a gun to protect yourself, so the criminals will have to get a gun to protect themself from you. If criminals know that you don't have a gun, they won't bother to get one and suddenly the murder rate plummets.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

The theory behind the guns to protect yourself isn't for the criminals it's so we can keep our government in check. For the people by the people?

Two points about this comment.

1. Do you really believe that the weapons civilians are allowed to own, with the limited or complete absence of training they have on top of that, could ever compete with our military's technology and expertise?

2. Isn't it our responsibility to vote intelligently, to keep from having to rise up against our country? It's not the fault of the government, it's the fault of the people who elected the corrupt into office. They have no power without us other than what we've allowed them to take.

Last edited by Not (2006-08-21 17:47:36)

.:XDR:.PureFodder

If criminals know that you don't have a gun, they won't bother to get one and suddenly the murder rate plummets.

Interesting, but most murders in the USA are casue by someone the victim knows and it could be anything that is used as a weapon.

The burning bed!(great tv movie)
broken bottle
monkey wrench
electric cord
car
high heel shoe
knife
toaster and a bath

Lots of people get murdered!
not all are murdered with guns.

ht_fly wrote:

.:XDR:.PureFodder

If criminals know that you don't have a gun, they won't bother to get one and suddenly the murder rate plummets.

Interesting, but most murders in the USA are casue by someone the victim knows and it could be anything that is used as a weapon.

The burning bed!(great tv movie)
broken bottle
monkey wrench
electric cord
car
high heel shoe
knife
toaster and a bath

Lots of people get murdered!
not all are murdered with guns.

Britain banned electrical sockets in bathrooms. There's also strict rules over the types of knives you can own.

Guns are a very easy and relatively effective way to kill people. A quarter second of adrenaline rush and it's all over. To strangle someone to death with an electrical chord takes time and a lot of strength. A single stab wound is far easier to survive than a single bullet wound. If guns aren't to blame, why does america have 3 times the homicide rate of the UK?

jonsimon wrote:

1. Yes. It's been done many times before. Besides, the people are the military, if the people rise, the military falls.

Then the civilians don't need any guns, the military that is rising up with you can do any shooting that's needed. They're much better at it. If the military aren't on your side then you're going to loose.

jonsimon wrote:

2. It is not our fault if our only choices are corruption or deceit. We only elect the officials, the government nominates them. The government had taken its own reins long ago, the people are a trifle easily circumvented in our current system.

Erm, I could be wrong here, but can't almost anyone over 35 run to be presedent? You don't actually have to be democrat or republican, it's just that the US public forgot about that at some point.

jonsimon wrote:

Not wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

The theory behind the guns to protect yourself isn't for the criminals it's so we can keep our government in check. For the people by the people?

Two points about this comment.

1. Do you really believe that the weapons civilians are allowed to own, with the limited or complete absence of training they have on top of that, could ever compete with our military's technology and expertise?

2. Isn't it our responsibility to vote intelligently, to keep from having to rise up against our country? It's not the fault of the government, it's the fault of the people who elected the corrupt into office. They have no power without us other than what we've allowed them to take.

1. Yes. It's been done many times before. Besides, the people are the military, if the people rise, the military falls.

2. It is not our fault if our only choices are corruption or deceit. We only elect the officials, the government nominates them. The government had taken its own reins long ago, the people are a trifle easily circumvented in our current system.

Now that's a VERY strong claim to make. I'm assuming that you read my post, right? You're suggesting that, basically, a bunch of farmers with snub 38's could subdue the US Armed Forces? It's been done in history, but NEVER in history has the difference in weaponry between the revolutionary forces and the government been so expansive, nor have military tactics been as advanced.

I'm sorry, but I simply disagree that a group of 28 or 30 Grape Street Crips would last long in a confrontation with a trained, coordinated army with state-of-the-art weapons, nightvision, satellite imagery, and of course bombs. Do we have a civilian air force? Do we have a civilian armored unit?



And yes, it IS our fault that our only choices are corruption or deceit! Now, maybe not the fault of you or I, depending on your age. But the people are VERY complacent in what we accept! If things are so corrupt, why not have yourself a revolution? Go ahead, start it up. Unless the aforementioned fact about how completely out-gunned and out-trained we are.

If you read back a few posts of mine - At least I hope it was in this thread, if not then I'll clarify here - you'll see that I agree with you that the military would never support an order to attack our own civilians en masse. My point was simply made to refute the claim that we need to bear arms to defend ourselves if we had to revolt. It simply wouldn't work.

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

ht_fly wrote:

.:XDR:.PureFodder

If criminals know that you don't have a gun, they won't bother to get one and suddenly the murder rate plummets.

Interesting, but most murders in the USA are casue by someone the victim knows and it could be anything that is used as a weapon.

The burning bed!(great tv movie)
broken bottle
monkey wrench
electric cord
car
high heel shoe
knife
toaster and a bath

Lots of people get murdered!
not all are murdered with guns.

Britain banned electrical sockets in bathrooms. There's also strict rules over the types of knives you can own.

Guns are a very easy and relatively effective way to kill people. A quarter second of adrenaline rush and it's all over. To strangle someone to death with an electrical chord takes time and a lot of strength. A single stab wound is far easier to survive than a single bullet wound. If guns aren't to blame, why does america have 3 times the homicide rate of the UK?

jonsimon wrote:

1. Yes. It's been done many times before. Besides, the people are the military, if the people rise, the military falls.

Then the civilians don't need any guns, the military that is rising up with you can do any shooting that's needed. They're much better at it. If the military aren't on your side then you're going to loose.

jonsimon wrote:

2. It is not our fault if our only choices are corruption or deceit. We only elect the officials, the government nominates them. The government had taken its own reins long ago, the people are a trifle easily circumvented in our current system.

Erm, I could be wrong here, but can't almost anyone over 35 run to be presedent? You don't actually have to be democrat or republican, it's just that the US public forgot about that at some point.

Well Judging by the fact that the US alone has almost 5 times the amount of people of the UK.  Perhaps that might explain the difference in crime rate. 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.) US vs. 60,441,457 (July 2005 est.) UK.

America was created from the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. Among these, are the Freedom of speech and religion, the right to bear arms, or to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Giving up these rights would be like asking England to give up on the Queen. Honestly why keep her around shes just a figurehead? (note: this was not a bash against England, but mearly an example to get you thinking of the history and pride in a countries traditions.)

Well, I searched a little more and found a nice link to some crime rate comparisons. Surprisingly, Sweden actually looks little like Atlanta at night...

UK actually does have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Maybe they are right about this gun ban thing...

http://danmark.wordpress.com/2006/07/01 … ions-ever/

Last edited by EVieira (2006-08-22 18:10:45)