United States of Earth

Remove all ads!

Because it's been aaaaaaages since anything fun happened on here. Reading through his arguments is like giving a Triffid the key to the butchers warehouse and then watch it try to figure out what to do without opposable thumbs

 

Are you kidding? Any political party who feels the need to clarify that they are indeed 'non-racist' on the opening sentence of their parties website, probably are. The only good thing about the UKIP is that their 'rise' will split the right-wing vote.

 

Racism is a subtle thing. Even before the current laws here in the USA it existed in the North despite denials. Since the laws about discrimination have been passed things have improved but racism has gone under cover and people are careful about how they act and what they say. I do not live in Britain and am not familiar with the UKIP but Barmy does and I would take his word over any USA source or lack of source.

If he is wrong let another Brit tell us.

 

You're right that the vast majority of people in the US support the right to bear arms. But it is not accurate to say that the vast majority of Americans love guns. I'll just use myself as an example. I support the right to bear arms. (I have never met an irresponsible gun owner by the way. I'm sure they're out there, but every single person I know who owns guns is responsible with them.) But I have no desire nor any intention of ever owning a gun myself. So I don't love guns.

Also of note, while there are more guns in the US than there are people, most Americans don't own guns. A recent NBC/WSJ poll showed that 42% of households had at least one gun owner. (Note that it says households - it's likely the percentage of gun owners is somewhat lower - if anyone owns a gun in the house when you ask for household information, you count.) Using my expert powers of deduction, I conclude that 58% of household in the US don't have a gun owner. The reason why there are more guns than people in the US is that many of the people who do own guns own more than one.

Bold added by me for emphasis. This must not mean what it appears to mean. We have employment laws in the US as well, and many of those things are listed. It would seem that a literal interpretation would mean an employer could not take into account a person's ability to perform the job when considering whether or not they should be hired. Clearly, it can't mean that, as the ability to be able to do the job is the primary thing an employer would be looking for when considering hiring someone. Is "level of ability" the new, more PC term, for disability? Just asking because whenever I see a job posting on this side of the pond, we still use the term "disability". (And as a side note, why would "potential for pregnancy" need it's own category? If you already have age and gender on the list isn't this redundant? It would seem that any woman of childbearing age would have the "potential for pregnancy".)

Have you ever been to another country? Even if it's not a European nation. Like, even something like Canada? Just curious.

Where do you live? That might help explain a lot. Do you somewhere like Alaska where the level of gun ownership is nearly twice the national average?

Stunning. It makes you wonder why many of these supposed conservatives don't vote that way. Unless the implication is that nearly all moderates vote for the more liberal party ... which would lead me to wonder if they are truly moderate in the first pace.

 

I put level of ability not as the 'new PC term' as I've already made my thoughts clear on that - but as it works multiple ways. It does not refer to ability to perform a specific occupation as I wasn't speaking of job applications. When it comes to free speech it goes both ways - stopping racist hate speech doesn't just mean "stopping speech hateful towards asians" it applies to all races, likewise stopping speech hateful towards the disabled should also protect those without disabilities or those with well managed or socially perceived 'light' disabilities or temporary disabilities.

Again potential for pregnancy goes both ways - You are looking at it from a perspective of an employer perhaps but not all women of childbearing age are able to bear children - post-op and therapy transgender women are still unable to bear children as are born female women who due to illness or accident are unable to have children, then there are those who chose not to have families by choice and women who are in monogamous life partnerships that for one reason or another will result in no children born to the couple.

Whilst a potential employer may wish not to employ a woman because of the "risk" that they'll need maternity leave is too great - in terms of speech there are just as many groups who are vocal against the people who have "serial pregnancies" as there are who are vocal against people who can't or won't have children, and it's usually the women who get the brunt of that unfortunately.

 

That is, brutally, true.

 

The poll uses conservative with a small c. It is not a poll of who belongs to what party. Nor does the poll say "right-wing". I am an independent. If asked I would reply I am a fiscal conservative, believe in small non-invasive government and I strongly support the right of the individual to make his or her own choices as long as they do infringe upon the rights of others. Polls shine a light in only one corner and do not always take the complete picture into account.

Also being a member of the Republican Party does not automatically make you a Conservative. Being a member of the Democratic Party does not automatically make you a Liberal.

I consider myself a socialist (small s) because I support the working person but I have my own definition of what/who a working person is. I also do not particpate in polls because I find them a waste of my time.

Note on Alaska: I lived there for a year and a half and was active in the Anchorage Community. Many people in Alaska are hunters. There are also the Eskimos and Native Americans living there. They do not "love" the guns or have some kind of Rambo fixation on guns but find them a practical tool. I was given various types of meat from their hunting expeditions.

I doubt that the 2nd amendment will ever be changed or abolished. 2/3 RD of the states would have to agree to that. The states have not lost that right yet as it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change that. We still have a few rights left

Now just so there will not be any misunderstandings I am not happy with our current government and will quite willing go into detail as to why I feel that way if anyone wants to know. Before I am told to leave my country I would like to point out that it is my understanding that I still have the right to protest and complain about the government, Federal, State or Local. This is my country, right or wrong, and I will and have defended it and its people verbally even at cost to myself.

 

Is it? Or is it just clever propaganda to promote my new Triffid/butcher world order?
I plan to unite the world under the banner of carnivorous shrubbery and damn the consequences! If you don't agree then you are quite clearly a racist herbaphobe with no moral grounding!

 

I know literally dozens of people, probably hundreds if I chose to get into that level of detail about people's personal lives and they would be comfortable speaking to me about it (this is a personal and increasingly controversial topic), who own weapons. I am friends with a man who owns over 10 collectible M14s or M14 variants, and who regularly hunts with other weapons that aren't collectible. I was once friends with a man who spends thousands of dollars traveling across the country to bag trophy game every year (now I'm basically peripherally familiar with him). I know at least 2 individuals in the building I work in who legally concealed-carry handguns. A close friend of mine has a concealed-carry permit, owns over a dozen rifles, AR-15 systems, AK systems, and at least 5 hand-guns, with probably tens of thousands of dollars in optics, magazines, rail systems, and various other accoutrements, has attended tens of shooting schools, is friends with the amongst the most serious and acclaimed firearms instructors in the U.S., and has been known to compete in shooting competitions on the weekends.

I have similiar experience living in many parts of the country. I lived in Iowa, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, New York, California, Alaska, and Arizona, and have at least traveled to and stayed overnight in every state minus Hawaii. (Maybe this year...)

I have known individuals in at least 5 of those states, including California (which also has tougher gun laws than most of the rest of the U.S.), who did indeed carry weapons either on their person, legally, or in their car (which I suppose was probably illegal, and dumb).

I am not claiming my experience is universal. I am well aware that it is not. I have served in the military for more than a few years, which is a small, small minority of the U.S. population (less than one-half of one percent of the U.S. population currently serve in the military and less than 12% of the U.S. population has ever been in the military in their life), and though many of my friends currently serve or recently did, I am also friends and family with policemen, Border Patrol, FBI agents, and gov't contractors. It is obvious I am part of a more "militant" population that, in the course of our duties, must be able to defend ourselves violently if need be, and therefore takes training seriously, and often purchase our own weapons. That being said, I also count amongst my friends and family college students, pastors and ministers, professors, EMTs, doctors, factory-workers, farmers, physical-therapists, brokers, volunteer firemen, service providers, writers, housewives, educators, businessmen, and individuals of many other professions--some of whom own weapons and many of whom do not. I grew up in the rural Midwest, where many of my friends and family still reside, where many individuals hunt as a hobby, for instance.

I agree with you in that my perception is that the U.S. is not really a "gun-loving," gun-toting nation, either. But the truth is complex.

I'm not saying my experience is any "truer" than yours, Nakia, or that mine is somehow more common. I know it's not; yours may very well be more universal than mine. But the one thing I've learned, living all over the U.S., is that the U.S. is a big place with a whole lot of people, who can be very different from each other. The experience of a single person is very rarely anything but anecdotal.

 

I have a new theory that AD is actually Tal under another name, trying to spice things up around here.

 

That would be a brilliant move on his part. No one would suspect him.

 

Aye but I can't see him prancing about and getting his knickers in a twist over this. He's far too serious!

 

@dogsoldier, yes the subject is complex. I know hundreds of people who do not own guns, are not interested owing guns. There are people who need to carry guns for perfectly legitimate reasons. There are people who hunt, there are ranchers and farmers who use them to stop animal and even human predators. I do not argue that there are not good and reasonable reasons for owing a gun. There is in my opinion nothing wrong with collecting weapons legally, displaying them in properly locked cases or even hanging a disabled weapon on the wall.

My comments are directed at those whether "American" or from another nation who insist that we as a nation have a gun mentality, that we love guns and have some sort of fixation on them. I have had this discussion before. Been attacked and vilified (not here) because of my stance.

We are a young nation. Homesteading of Federal lands was not discontinued until the 1960s or 70s. It is still possible in a few states to do a type o homesteading. We are a pioneer country. Europe is ancient and it is my strongly held opinion that what they do there is their business.

I have tried in vain to explain the Constitution, Federal rights and States rights. I personally see no reason why assault weapons should be easily available to the general public. Those are weapons that can do massive injury and death. Those in my opinion should be banned except of course to the property people. I.E. The military and maybe in very rare and controled situations to the police. Collectors could collect if the weapon is disabled and kept under secure lock and key.

If I were to sit around worrying that someone would enter my house to rape or rob me I might run out and buy a hand gun but would that really be a good idea. I get absorbed in projects on and off line. I get engrossed in games. I go to sleep. What good would that gun do me if it is not loaded and at hand if a emergency arises? So I load up the gun and get near my hand. My nephew comes in unexpectedly and startles me. I shoot him. I would not be very happy if I did that. So I don't own a gun on the off chance that I may need in once in my life. I don't go around worrying about being attacked. I am more likely to be injured or die in an automobile accident than at the hands of some criminal.

I believe in gun control not in denying the right of people to own legitmately appropriate weapons. When some poll says that we support the 2 ND Amendment all that says to me is that we believe there are certain circumstances were ownership of a gun is appropriate.

Should we ban our policy from carrying weapons? I would be against such a ban.

Edit: I don't care who started the thread I am enjoying the chance to get a few things out of my system.

 

Believe me, I don't need help and I'm nothing like I was back then. Back then I was on another forum where all of the right-wingers participated in one massive circle jerk about how evil liberals are. The left-wingers did the same thing, only they bashed conservatives instead. It was not a very productive environment at all and I found it to be very detrimental to not only having rational discussions, but also to one's own views. While I appreciate the concern, things are a bit different here, instead it's just a circle-jerk between the Europeans against me, with the exception of a few moderates, like Gaear.

It has been about a year since I left d2jsp and I have since become much more open to other viewpoints. I even have a few liberal friends now and we have civil discussions and debates in real life regularly. I no longer blindly support libertarianism, in fact, my some of my views now are in stark contrast with many libertarians and conservatives; they're also in stark contrast with many leftists, as you can see by reactions of liberals in this thread. I think you'll find that if you look at politics in the abstract, if you give the subject of political philosophy much thought, you'll find yourself going beyond the "hurr durr let's argue about abortion and taxes for the next 30 years" and instead come up with unique solutions that cannot really be defined in the general political climate.

I'm not an 18 year old, nor is this my first semester of college. I'm 20 and this is my second semester, but I don't see why that should have to do with anything. I'm hardly the "idiot" that some members, like Nakia, try to make me out to be, though I couldn't care less what you think of me.

And one more thing before I head out for college, Nakia, you mentioned that the United Kingdom would lose it's unique culture? Yet you're sadly mistaken in that respect, the United Kingdom wouldn't lose it's culture anymore by joining the United States than it did by joining the European Union or United Nations. Obviously the federal government is quite out of control at the moment, but so is the European Commission and the United Nations; in fact I'd argue that the United Nations is much worse. Obviously during the time that we build better relations with other states, we would also be working domestically to return to a constitutional government. Your problem is that you view the United States as just another country, like Denmark, but it's not, we're a federation of independent states that represent various unique cultural, historic and religious groups.

 

@AD I did read your post. I don't think you are an idiot. I think you just don't know much about other people, other countries and the rights that other people have. I disagree with many of statements and opinions. If you wish to get personal please PM me. Those are the rules of this forum.

 

I went to Mexico two years ago and stayed for about two weeks.

I live in semi-rural Missouri. We probably have the same amount of guns as everywhere else, except for liberal cities like Chicago. I say semi-rural, since it's right in between the suburbs and the middle of nowhere. You can drive 15 miles in one direction and be in the suburbs, but if you drive 15 miles in the other direction, you'll be in miles and miles of farmland.

 

My my, aren't we little Mr. Jetsetter?

 

That's a good answer Arkite, thank you.

I never really said anything to the contrary, only that maybe we should lighten up a bit. He's just on the cusp of learning to think, which is a heady time for anybody. (That's not a dig at you, AD. We've all been there at a young age.) With that in mind, surely it's our responsibility as 'seniors' to sort of shepherd him along a bit more gently instead of bashing him in the head with a sledgehammer? He'll learn his lessons either way, but the latter seems unnecessarily brutal. I assume none of us would tell our 14 year old kids that they're "effing loser a-holes" when they screw up, instead preferring a more moderate "you might want to rethink that." SP is typically not and never has been a flame war/acting out/character assassination board. I hope that's not changing for the worse.

True (though 'fun' is relative - personally I've enjoyed most all my time here). So actually we should all be thanking him and repping him for lighting a fire under all our butts.

Similar experience here, if considerably less extensive. "Gun loving" is really a misnomer and is, I think, more commonly a phrase used by those who wish to portray the US's responsible-firearms-owning society as foolish without actually performing any due diligence. If you say "gun loving," you evoke stereotypical images of unsophisticated deep south people shooting at passing cars or whatever. That's simply inaccurate for the vast majority of firearms owners in the US.

 

Gaear: I've found over the years when I make a dumb comment it gets called out as a dumb comment. If I post a opinion that is unpopular it's going to be taken apart. It takes thick skin to be in the alleys and the understanding that having your idea being called dumb and being picked apart is not the same as calling the individual dumb. AD hasn't gotten that yet. He appears to be taking the criticism of his ideas as if they are personal insults (and to be honest some are); unfortunately, his responses are often personal slights at the individuals instead of a debate of the issue.

The use of "kid", "nazi", "dense" and others comments on his part make him a target for retaliation. You reap what you sow.

 

Hmmmm.... That doesn't really help. All the ones that agree with American ideals are already here.

Well, the more rural a setting you live in, the more prevalent gun ownership is - that's why I asked. It's also far more prevalent in the south. I don't know if Missourians consider themselves to be living in the south. I guess it's south if you just drew a latitudinal line in the middle of the country, but when I think of the south I'm thinking the southeast. I think I'd classify Missouri as "southern midwest".

I'm also fascinated how political views seem to be a good predictor of gun ownership. Conservatives are far more likely to own guns than liberals, although I think that might be a chicken or the egg question.