World Politics

[Mario]

Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.

[Demolution]

I don't like guns of any kind, but I'm about to oppose them. At least the U.S. is not doing things like England, where you're guaranteed going to prison for just defending yourself with a weapon or even with an object of any kind.

gg England.

[mooseberry]

***Disclaimer: I am not (neccesarily) for gun control, I believe people have the right to be able to defend themselves, but when I see something like this posted, it hits somewhere in my "person spouting random crap without any evidence" nerve"***

Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.

Your logic seems quite faulty here.

First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?

Here is a list of gun ownership per capita by country As you can see, the USA is highest in civilian gun ownership by far. A country such as England only has 5.6 guns per 100 people, or about 16 times less than that of the USA. Not suprisingly while the USA has 11.6 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, England has only .038 total firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. This number seems pretty damn convincing to me. Regular police do not even carry firearms during standard patrols. Now, according to your statement, the fact that both (a.) most regular citizens do not own guns, and (b.) police do not regularly carry weapons, this would lead to a "civil war." If that were so, why is it that in the list of countries by intetentional homicide rate, the USA is 55 countries higher than England+Wales?

Therefore, unless I am somehow missing something really big, your claim that " If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours" seems unlikely considering that England has not been in a civil war since the Third English civil war, (also seen here on wikipedia) This civil war ended in the year 1651, or 234 years before the American Civil war.

Now, I am using England as a comparison because Both the USA and England Have been strong Allies for over 100 years and share much in the way of culture and other similarities. If you are still not convinced on this point, I suggest you use the links I provided (that have all countries) and do some more research yourself.

Your second statement, "You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime." is mostly wild speculation, so there isn't much I can offer you in the way of facts about this. (I say wild because I see no reason how this could possibly happen, unless you care to explain.) You can look at what I said about your first point however, to realize that gun ownership in countries usually has a strong correlation to death by guns (makes sence, doesn't it.)

On the logic side however, your statement just seems absurd. Claiming that taking away people's guns will lead to "...the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country..." just makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say I have a group of 20,000 people who want to overthrow the government, but we have no guns, now compare this same situation to 20,000 people who DO have guns, and see how your logic is flawed at best. People have used guns almost exclusivly (meaning not much more archaic technologies such as swords or spears) to fight wars since the 1700s, and an attempt to fight a war in the current day and age without guns would be extremly foolish. Also, while by definition Civil war means: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." which does not neccesarily include the government, looking at a list of civil wars, it is evident that most of these conflicts took place between the current government and a group of unsatisfied citizens. It is unlikely that there would be a conflict between the USA and its citizens on such a large scale as you claim.

You claim that society "can break at any moment also for any given reason." This seems extremly paranoid to me. In the history of the USA, never has society "totally broken" since the American civil war, which ended 144 years ago. (See link above if you don't know about the civil war.) Now, it is fine for one to take extra procedures against possible disasters, but to claim that society can break at any moment has a ring of large paranoia and/or fear spreading.

Lastly, you say "I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $." Please tell me how many times this has happened to you before in your life. While it is your choice to own a gun for this reason, please consider the implications if every person in the world thought and acted this way.

As per the above disclaimer, I believe people who have not commited crimes involving weapons have a right to purchase guns in case they should need to defend themselves, but when people make such outrages claims like this with 0 evidence, I feel the need to respond.

P.S. I kind of feel like a loser for actually posting this much, but I figured this threat deserved some actual researched posts, instead of the rambling on by people who heard stuff on tv that you usually see online.

[Rocinante]

First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?

At the very least, it would take removing those guns from people.  While in England they don't currently have them, in the US the guns are already in peoples' hands.  Trying to take them away is asking for a fight, since there's no way to suddenly just make them disappear.

Regardless of the gun laws, my biggest problem with restricting gun ownership is that it does nothing to keep the criminals from using guns.  "Harsher penalties!" is a BS argument - there's already harsh penalties, and severe ones for killing someone, but people still kill each other.  These are not the kind of people who care about consequences, and frankly I think many criminals think twice about mugging someone in my current state when they don't know if any given person is carrying a concealed weapon (your permit to purchase a weapon is also a CCW permit == even that old lady with a walker could have a .38 special in her handbag).

[Baconizer]

First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?

At the very least, it would take removing those guns from people.  While in England they don't currently have them, in the US the guns are already in peoples' hands.  Trying to take them away is asking for a fight, since there's no way to suddenly just make them disappear.

Regardless of the gun laws, my biggest problem with restricting gun ownership is that it does nothing to keep the criminals from using guns.  "Harsher penalties!" is a BS argument - there's already harsh penalties, and severe ones for killing someone, but people still kill each other.  These are not the kind of people who care about consequences, and frankly I think many criminals think twice about mugging someone in my current state when they don't know if any given person is carrying a concealed weapon (your permit to purchase a weapon is also a CCW permit == even that old lady with a walker could have a .38 special in her handbag).

I agree completely with this post. It would be nice if we lived in a world where guns are not needed for defense, but obviously we don't.

Another thing to remember is that a gun is a tool. It can be used for hunting, murder, target practice, etc.
If a person is determined to murder someone else, lack of guns might make it somewhat harder, but they're going to find a way to do it, eventually.
As for hunting, I only oppose it if its for pure enjoyment (or just for the fur), where the animal is left to rot after being killed.

[mooseberry]

First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?

At the very least, it would take removing those guns from people.  While in England they don't currently have them, in the US the guns are already in peoples' hands.  Trying to take them away is asking for a fight, since there's no way to suddenly just make them disappear.

Regardless of the gun laws, my biggest problem with restricting gun ownership is that it does nothing to keep the criminals from using guns.  "Harsher penalties!" is a BS argument - there's already harsh penalties, and severe ones for killing someone, but people still kill each other.  These are not the kind of people who care about consequences, and frankly I think many criminals think twice about mugging someone in my current state when they don't know if any given person is carrying a concealed weapon (your permit to purchase a weapon is also a CCW permit == even that old lady with a walker could have a .38 special in her handbag).

Your right on the first point. I sort of imagined him to be saying if there were not guns than there suddenly would be a huge war. It is obvious that many people would not want to give up their guns, but a.) the odds of the government going in and taking guns away from everyone is very low, it is much more likely that they would just start with stricter laws. However his responce seems a bit non-sensical in this case, as that would mean he replied saying: "You think there is a lot of crime with the ammount of guns we have now? Just see what would happen if the government decided to steal all of ours." That, while probably true, has nothing to do with the previous discussion, which concerned the relationship between guns and crime. I assumed he was making a responce which actually fit what he was answering, and thus was misled.

As to your second paragraph, you seem a bit contradictory. You claim " These are not the kind of people who care about consequences, and frankly I think many criminals think twice about mugging someone..." Yes, you were speaking about laws, but studies (too lazy to link to those now) have shown that many people who commit crimes do not think about ANY possible repercusions from commiting them. And even if you do believe that they would worry about the fact that anyone can be armed (which I'm sure plenty do) that only seems to increase the chance that they would carry a gun themselves. If I were about to attempt to rob someone and I wasn't sure whether or not they had a gun, I would most certanitly arm myself.

[Rocinante]

I see what you mean there.  In terms of not thinking of consequences, I meant specifically from getting caught by the authorities - but I don't doubt your comment that criminals don't think of any consequences at all.  I'm sure many don't, but I'm willing to bet that there's at least some (say the ones who would think twice about robbing the Dunkin' Donuts where the cops hang out) who give pause in some neighborhoods when they know the average joe they're about to mug for his wallet and phone could be packing a bigger cannon than they are.

[Mario]

***Disclaimer: I am not (neccesarily) for gun control, I believe people have the right to be able to defend themselves, but when I see something like this posted, it hits somewhere in my "person spouting random crap without any evidence" nerve"***

Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.

Your logic seems quite faulty here.

First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?

Here is a list of gun ownership per capita by country As you can see, the USA is highest in civilian gun ownership by far. A country such as England only has 5.6 guns per 100 people, or about 16 times less than that of the USA. Not suprisingly while the USA has 11.6 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, England has only .038 total firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. This number seems pretty damn convincing to me. Regular police do not even carry firearms during standard patrols. Now, according to your statement, the fact that both (a.) most regular citizens do not own guns, and (b.) police do not regularly carry weapons, this would lead to a "civil war." If that were so, why is it that in the list of countries by intetentional homicide rate, the USA is 55 countries higher than England+Wales?

Therefore, unless I am somehow missing something really big, your claim that " If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours" seems unlikely considering that England has not been in a civil war since the Third English civil war, (also seen here on wikipedia) This civil war ended in the year 1651, or 234 years before the American Civil war.

Now, I am using England as a comparison because Both the USA and England Have been strong Allies for over 100 years and share much in the way of culture and other similarities. If you are still not convinced on this point, I suggest you use the links I provided (that have all countries) and do some more research yourself.

Your second statement, "You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime." is mostly wild speculation, so there isn't much I can offer you in the way of facts about this. (I say wild because I see no reason how this could possibly happen, unless you care to explain.) You can look at what I said about your first point however, to realize that gun ownership in countries usually has a strong correlation to death by guns (makes sence, doesn't it.)

On the logic side however, your statement just seems absurd. Claiming that taking away people's guns will lead to "...the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country..." just makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say I have a group of 20,000 people who want to overthrow the government, but we have no guns, now compare this same situation to 20,000 people who DO have guns, and see how your logic is flawed at best. People have used guns almost exclusivly (meaning not much more archaic technologies such as swords or spears) to fight wars since the 1700s, and an attempt to fight a war in the current day and age without guns would be extremly foolish. Also, while by definition Civil war means: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." which does not neccesarily include the government, looking at a list of civil wars, it is evident that most of these conflicts took place between the current government and a group of unsatisfied citizens. It is unlikely that there would be a conflict between the USA and its citizens on such a large scale as you claim.

You claim that society "can break at any moment also for any given reason." This seems extremly paranoid to me. In the history of the USA, never has society "totally broken" since the American civil war, which ended 144 years ago. (See link above if you don't know about the civil war.) Now, it is fine for one to take extra procedures against possible disasters, but to claim that society can break at any moment has a ring of large paranoia and/or fear spreading.

Lastly, you say "I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $." Please tell me how many times this has happened to you before in your life. While it is your choice to own a gun for this reason, please consider the implications if every person in the world thought and acted this way.

As per the above disclaimer, I believe people who have not commited crimes involving weapons have a right to purchase guns in case they should need to defend themselves, but when people make such outrages claims like this with 0 evidence, I feel the need to respond.

P.S. I kind of feel like a loser for actually posting this much, but I figured this threat deserved some actual researched posts, instead of the rambling on by people who heard stuff on tv that you usually see online.

Unless you're forgetting that people are ready to revolt if you attempt to take guns away. It's not random shit you hear on tv. The lower part of the U.S has 48 continental states and states would begin to go to into conflict with the federal government over major civil rights violations (hence civil war). States could begin taking orders from their individual governors and not the President. Succession or sovereignty could be declared by a state if a government attempts to do this. 80 million registered gun owners are aware of their rights to bare arms, and we are aware of the REST of the Constitution also. .."the right to bare arms shall NOT be infringed" is part of it. National Guardsmen and New Orleans Police took weapons from law abiding citizens in 2005; and you better believe without a doubt, it will happen again.

And I said I'm not getting MY ass stabbed or hacked for some $. You can carry a weapon or not, I don't really care.

Here's the truth, our financial system is crumbling, people don't want to believe it but it's true. Of course the U.S. didn't fail back then. People say it's fine, but they don't notice how every time the economy goes into another mess, we INCREASE the money that's needed to pull it out of a hole. What happens when the bailout funds run out? Will we print the USD into oblivion? We were actually producers, manufactures, and not lazy asses back then. We were once a symbol of more than just military might and our precious paper dollar.
 
Our debt clock wasn't 14 digits long either. A relationship is give and take, not take and consume consume consume. Eventually the rest of the world will get tired of it, and it sounds like we're getting pretty close to it happening. WROL means people also getting desperate, and crime will rise from this if the financial system does worsen.

Even if you didn't believe it, why would you want to risk not being prepared for a catastrophic event? I don't understand how telling people to simply buy food and water for an emergency is spreading fear and panic. Do you believe in waiting for the news to say a hurricane is on it's way to do this? Maybe your logic is what's flawed here, not mine. I guess we all don't tell our children how to get out of the house anymore if there's a fire in the living room either. I'm talking to everyone here as a concerned person, not someone who is trying to scare you to death. I'd rather for you to know than it to all of a sudden hit you in the face. I've spent nearly $1200 on this, not a big chunk of money but it wasn't blown on a new LCD monitor, or upgrading my computer. Im a giving person so I buy for the people around me also who are the same ones who will probably ignore me until that time comes. No money is worth anyones life.

And by the way, ALL of my information is researched, never random garbage just to say something.

[mooseberry]

***Disclaimer: I am not (neccesarily) for gun control, I believe people have the right to be able to defend themselves, but when I see something like this posted, it hits somewhere in my "person spouting random crap without any evidence" nerve"***

Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.

Your logic seems quite faulty here.

First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?

Here is a list of gun ownership per capita by country As you can see, the USA is highest in civilian gun ownership by far. A country such as England only has 5.6 guns per 100 people, or about 16 times less than that of the USA. Not suprisingly while the USA has 11.6 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, England has only .038 total firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. This number seems pretty damn convincing to me. Regular police do not even carry firearms during standard patrols. Now, according to your statement, the fact that both (a.) most regular citizens do not own guns, and (b.) police do not regularly carry weapons, this would lead to a "civil war." If that were so, why is it that in the list of countries by intetentional homicide rate, the USA is 55 countries higher than England+Wales?

Therefore, unless I am somehow missing something really big, your claim that " If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours" seems unlikely considering that England has not been in a civil war since the Third English civil war, (also seen here on wikipedia) This civil war ended in the year 1651, or 234 years before the American Civil war.

Now, I am using England as a comparison because Both the USA and England Have been strong Allies for over 100 years and share much in the way of culture and other similarities. If you are still not convinced on this point, I suggest you use the links I provided (that have all countries) and do some more research yourself.

Your second statement, "You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime." is mostly wild speculation, so there isn't much I can offer you in the way of facts about this. (I say wild because I see no reason how this could possibly happen, unless you care to explain.) You can look at what I said about your first point however, to realize that gun ownership in countries usually has a strong correlation to death by guns (makes sence, doesn't it.)

On the logic side however, your statement just seems absurd. Claiming that taking away people's guns will lead to "...the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country..." just makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say I have a group of 20,000 people who want to overthrow the government, but we have no guns, now compare this same situation to 20,000 people who DO have guns, and see how your logic is flawed at best. People have used guns almost exclusivly (meaning not much more archaic technologies such as swords or spears) to fight wars since the 1700s, and an attempt to fight a war in the current day and age without guns would be extremly foolish. Also, while by definition Civil war means: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." which does not neccesarily include the government, looking at a list of civil wars, it is evident that most of these conflicts took place between the current government and a group of unsatisfied citizens. It is unlikely that there would be a conflict between the USA and its citizens on such a large scale as you claim.

You claim that society "can break at any moment also for any given reason." This seems extremly paranoid to me. In the history of the USA, never has society "totally broken" since the American civil war, which ended 144 years ago. (See link above if you don't know about the civil war.) Now, it is fine for one to take extra procedures against possible disasters, but to claim that society can break at any moment has a ring of large paranoia and/or fear spreading.

Lastly, you say "I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $." Please tell me how many times this has happened to you before in your life. While it is your choice to own a gun for this reason, please consider the implications if every person in the world thought and acted this way.

As per the above disclaimer, I believe people who have not commited crimes involving weapons have a right to purchase guns in case they should need to defend themselves, but when people make such outrages claims like this with 0 evidence, I feel the need to respond.

P.S. I kind of feel like a loser for actually posting this much, but I figured this threat deserved some actual researched posts, instead of the rambling on by people who heard stuff on tv that you usually see online.

Unless you're forgetting that people are ready to revolt if you attempt to take guns away. It's not random shit you hear on tv. The lower part of the U.S has 48 continental states and states would begin to go to into conflict with the federal government over major civil rights violations (hence civil war). States could begin taking orders from their individual governors and not the President. Succession or sovereignty could be declared by a state if a government attempts to do this. 80 million registered gun owners are aware of their rights to bare arms, and we are aware of the REST of the Constitution also. .."the right to bare arms shall NOT be infringed" is part of it. National Guardsmen and New Orleans Police took weapons from law abiding citizens in 2005; and you better believe without a doubt, it will happen again.

Please read my responce to Rocinante to understand better why I said the things I did. I assumed you were responding to the person you quoted, and not going off on a tangent, so I misread what you were saying.

As for the rest, like I said, that's fine. I never said you shouldn't be prepared for something, and while I think there is a difference between having canned food and other earthquake supplies (for California) in my house, and having a piece of metal welded to my ass to make it harder for aliens to do anal probes (just in case I'm kidnapped) if you deem collapse of the US government a real enough possiblity that you should strongly prepare for it, go ahead. Like I said, I think people should be able to own guns if they want to, but I highly doubt there will be "the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country" in the near future in America.

And by the way, saying ALL your information is researched means nothing if you can't actually back it up. I'm not saying that you can't, but just saying you researched something holds no weight unless you provide proof.

[Bissig]

Strange. I have been never attacked in my whole life (which should happen all the time according to Mario since all the criminals just wait around the corner to stab unsuspecting victims). And, additionally, murders happen mostly in affection, which means you are entirely controlled by emotions when that happens. That is also the reason why most of the murderers are getting caught: murders are mostly relationship based crimes.

Secondly I think Mario sounds exactly like a believer. Instead of believing in god, his main believe is his weaponry. It will "save him from all evil" etc..

No weapons is leading to peace, not swarming socities with them. Thats why after a civil war is over usually the cleaning up starts with getting the weapons back into governments hands and destroy them as it has happened in the Balkan countries and in Ruanda after the slayings.

Another flaw in Marios argumentation:

How come so many cops get killed in your country. Don't they wear weapons?

You have no valid arguments, just your believes. Which are contradicted by any scientific research that has been done and has not been funded by lobbyists like the NRA.

Columbia has one of the highest murder rates on this planet. Guess what.. they also have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in private hands.

Anyways, this is my last post here, since I am not wasting any more time in trying to convert a believer in weapons, war, hate and "an eye for an eye".

[your face]

Anyways, this is my last post here, since I am not wasting any more time...

shows how serious you are about your debates

[Mario]

***Disclaimer: I am not (neccesarily) for gun control, I believe people have the right to be able to defend themselves, but when I see something like this posted, it hits somewhere in my "person spouting random crap without any evidence" nerve"***

Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.

Your logic seems quite faulty here.

First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?

Here is a list of gun ownership per capita by country As you can see, the USA is highest in civilian gun ownership by far. A country such as England only has 5.6 guns per 100 people, or about 16 times less than that of the USA. Not suprisingly while the USA has 11.6 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, England has only .038 total firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. This number seems pretty damn convincing to me. Regular police do not even carry firearms during standard patrols. Now, according to your statement, the fact that both (a.) most regular citizens do not own guns, and (b.) police do not regularly carry weapons, this would lead to a "civil war." If that were so, why is it that in the list of countries by intetentional homicide rate, the USA is 55 countries higher than England+Wales?

Therefore, unless I am somehow missing something really big, your claim that " If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours" seems unlikely considering that England has not been in a civil war since the Third English civil war, (also seen here on wikipedia) This civil war ended in the year 1651, or 234 years before the American Civil war.

Now, I am using England as a comparison because Both the USA and England Have been strong Allies for over 100 years and share much in the way of culture and other similarities. If you are still not convinced on this point, I suggest you use the links I provided (that have all countries) and do some more research yourself.

Your second statement, "You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime." is mostly wild speculation, so there isn't much I can offer you in the way of facts about this. (I say wild because I see no reason how this could possibly happen, unless you care to explain.) You can look at what I said about your first point however, to realize that gun ownership in countries usually has a strong correlation to death by guns (makes sence, doesn't it.)

On the logic side however, your statement just seems absurd. Claiming that taking away people's guns will lead to "...the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country..." just makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say I have a group of 20,000 people who want to overthrow the government, but we have no guns, now compare this same situation to 20,000 people who DO have guns, and see how your logic is flawed at best. People have used guns almost exclusivly (meaning not much more archaic technologies such as swords or spears) to fight wars since the 1700s, and an attempt to fight a war in the current day and age without guns would be extremly foolish. Also, while by definition Civil war means: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." which does not neccesarily include the government, looking at a list of civil wars, it is evident that most of these conflicts took place between the current government and a group of unsatisfied citizens. It is unlikely that there would be a conflict between the USA and its citizens on such a large scale as you claim.

You claim that society "can break at any moment also for any given reason." This seems extremly paranoid to me. In the history of the USA, never has society "totally broken" since the American civil war, which ended 144 years ago. (See link above if you don't know about the civil war.) Now, it is fine for one to take extra procedures against possible disasters, but to claim that society can break at any moment has a ring of large paranoia and/or fear spreading.

Lastly, you say "I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $." Please tell me how many times this has happened to you before in your life. While it is your choice to own a gun for this reason, please consider the implications if every person in the world thought and acted this way.

As per the above disclaimer, I believe people who have not commited crimes involving weapons have a right to purchase guns in case they should need to defend themselves, but when people make such outrages claims like this with 0 evidence, I feel the need to respond.

P.S. I kind of feel like a loser for actually posting this much, but I figured this threat deserved some actual researched posts, instead of the rambling on by people who heard stuff on tv that you usually see online.

Unless you're forgetting that people are ready to revolt if you attempt to take guns away. It's not random shit you hear on tv. The lower part of the U.S has 48 continental states and states would begin to go to into conflict with the federal government over major civil rights violations (hence civil war). States could begin taking orders from their individual governors and not the President. Succession or sovereignty could be declared by a state if a government attempts to do this. 80 million registered gun owners are aware of their rights to bare arms, and we are aware of the REST of the Constitution also. .."the right to bare arms shall NOT be infringed" is part of it. National Guardsmen and New Orleans Police took weapons from law abiding citizens in 2005; and you better believe without a doubt, it will happen again.

Please read my responce to Rocinante to understand better why I said the things I did. I assumed you were responding to the person you quoted, and not going off on a tangent, so I misread what you were saying.

As for the rest, like I said, that's fine. I never said you shouldn't be prepared for something, and while I think there is a difference between having canned food and other earthquake supplies (for California) in my house, and having a piece of metal welded to my ass to make it harder for aliens to do anal probes (just in case I'm kidnapped) if you deem collapse of the US government a real enough possiblity that you should strongly prepare for it, go ahead. Like I said, I think people should be able to own guns if they want to, but I highly doubt there will be "the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country" in the near future in America.

And by the way, saying ALL your information is researched means nothing if you can't actually back it up. I'm not saying that you can't, but just saying you researched something holds no weight unless you provide proof.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/28/us-dollar-usurped-china-euro-world-bank G20 President addresses U.S. dollar role
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qLp3h0opUdI/SgajmeiyfSI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/zbt4ybEmftQ/s1600-h/purchasing+power.gif Dollars purchasing power

Now this is a government website with a government calculator. This is the end result of inflation. Select 1913 for the first amount, 2009 for the second. Enter '2000' for the amount and see what you get. Then reverse the two numbers, 2009 on top and 1913 on the bottom. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl I'm dubbed a god damn conspiracy theorist for saying this. That does make me upset. No one seems to care how serious this is. I apologize for not proving proof, I had this all open when I returned home so I didn't read any new posts.

Strange. I have been never attacked in my whole life (which should happen all the time according to Mario since all the criminals just wait around the corner to stab unsuspecting victims). And, additionally, murders happen mostly in affection, which means you are entirely controlled by emotions when that happens. That is also the reason why most of the murderers are getting caught: murders are mostly relationship based crimes.

Secondly I think Mario sounds exactly like a believer. Instead of believing in god, his main believe is his weaponry. It will "save him from all evil" etc..

No weapons is leading to peace, not swarming socities with them. Thats why after a civil war is over usually the cleaning up starts with getting the weapons back into governments hands and destroy them as it has happened in the Balkan countries and in Ruanda after the slayings.

Another flaw in Marios argumentation:

How come so many cops get killed in your country. Don't they wear weapons?

You have no valid arguments, just your believes. Which are contradicted by any scientific research that has been done and has not been funded by lobbyists like the NRA.

Columbia has one of the highest murder rates on this planet. Guess what.. they also have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in private hands.

Anyways, this is my last post here, since I am not wasting any more time in trying to convert a believer in weapons, war, hate and "an eye for an eye".

This is just great. Now I worship Satan. If no one had guns Bissig, then I would of never got mine. If people around me armed, so will I be. Just because you believe in god doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to defend yourself. I love life just as much as you do, but just because I believe in owning firearms doesn't mean I'm all about death and war. I didn't say that you would walk down the street and get stabbed, which in some cases DO happen in cities with high gang activity. I'm sure you've heard of gangs right? If you met me irl, I would shake your hand, and you would see the grip of a gun in a holster. Don't freak out now.

[KamikOzzy]

Mario I think you are freaking out far too much. If the police came to my door with a slip of paper that said I had to give them my 45, I'd hand it to them, grumble, complain to my friends, but I wouldn't go out and join some blind rebellion. Not everyone in the states is a redneck or a gangster who thinks taking on the united states army with nothing but "street experience" for training is a good idea.

Another thing, stop making dramatic sentences like this: "I would shake your hand, and you would see the grip of a gun in a holster." It doesn't make you look badass, credible, or anything other than childish and a bit paranoid. If you walk up to *me* on the streets, I would say "hey" and give that nod thing, and then you would see that I don't carry a gun, knife, or anything else, because I'm not afraid of everything all the time. Have some courage.

[mooseberry]

***Disclaimer: I am not (neccesarily) for gun control, I believe people have the right to be able to defend themselves, but when I see something like this posted, it hits somewhere in my "person spouting random crap without any evidence" nerve"***

Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.

Your logic seems quite faulty here.

First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?

Here is a list of gun ownership per capita by country As you can see, the USA is highest in civilian gun ownership by far. A country such as England only has 5.6 guns per 100 people, or about 16 times less than that of the USA. Not suprisingly while the USA has 11.6 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, England has only .038 total firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. This number seems pretty damn convincing to me. Regular police do not even carry firearms during standard patrols. Now, according to your statement, the fact that both (a.) most regular citizens do not own guns, and (b.) police do not regularly carry weapons, this would lead to a "civil war." If that were so, why is it that in the list of countries by intetentional homicide rate, the USA is 55 countries higher than England+Wales?

Therefore, unless I am somehow missing something really big, your claim that " If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours" seems unlikely considering that England has not been in a civil war since the Third English civil war, (also seen here on wikipedia) This civil war ended in the year 1651, or 234 years before the American Civil war.

Now, I am using England as a comparison because Both the USA and England Have been strong Allies for over 100 years and share much in the way of culture and other similarities. If you are still not convinced on this point, I suggest you use the links I provided (that have all countries) and do some more research yourself.

Your second statement, "You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime." is mostly wild speculation, so there isn't much I can offer you in the way of facts about this. (I say wild because I see no reason how this could possibly happen, unless you care to explain.) You can look at what I said about your first point however, to realize that gun ownership in countries usually has a strong correlation to death by guns (makes sence, doesn't it.)

On the logic side however, your statement just seems absurd. Claiming that taking away people's guns will lead to "...the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country..." just makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say I have a group of 20,000 people who want to overthrow the government, but we have no guns, now compare this same situation to 20,000 people who DO have guns, and see how your logic is flawed at best. People have used guns almost exclusivly (meaning not much more archaic technologies such as swords or spears) to fight wars since the 1700s, and an attempt to fight a war in the current day and age without guns would be extremly foolish. Also, while by definition Civil war means: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." which does not neccesarily include the government, looking at a list of civil wars, it is evident that most of these conflicts took place between the current government and a group of unsatisfied citizens. It is unlikely that there would be a conflict between the USA and its citizens on such a large scale as you claim.

You claim that society "can break at any moment also for any given reason." This seems extremly paranoid to me. In the history of the USA, never has society "totally broken" since the American civil war, which ended 144 years ago. (See link above if you don't know about the civil war.) Now, it is fine for one to take extra procedures against possible disasters, but to claim that society can break at any moment has a ring of large paranoia and/or fear spreading.

Lastly, you say "I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $." Please tell me how many times this has happened to you before in your life. While it is your choice to own a gun for this reason, please consider the implications if every person in the world thought and acted this way.

As per the above disclaimer, I believe people who have not commited crimes involving weapons have a right to purchase guns in case they should need to defend themselves, but when people make such outrages claims like this with 0 evidence, I feel the need to respond.

P.S. I kind of feel like a loser for actually posting this much, but I figured this threat deserved some actual researched posts, instead of the rambling on by people who heard stuff on tv that you usually see online.

Unless you're forgetting that people are ready to revolt if you attempt to take guns away. It's not random shit you hear on tv. The lower part of the U.S has 48 continental states and states would begin to go to into conflict with the federal government over major civil rights violations (hence civil war). States could begin taking orders from their individual governors and not the President. Succession or sovereignty could be declared by a state if a government attempts to do this. 80 million registered gun owners are aware of their rights to bare arms, and we are aware of the REST of the Constitution also. .."the right to bare arms shall NOT be infringed" is part of it. National Guardsmen and New Orleans Police took weapons from law abiding citizens in 2005; and you better believe without a doubt, it will happen again.

Please read my responce to Rocinante to understand better why I said the things I did. I assumed you were responding to the person you quoted, and not going off on a tangent, so I misread what you were saying.

As for the rest, like I said, that's fine. I never said you shouldn't be prepared for something, and while I think there is a difference between having canned food and other earthquake supplies (for California) in my house, and having a piece of metal welded to my ass to make it harder for aliens to do anal probes (just in case I'm kidnapped) if you deem collapse of the US government a real enough possiblity that you should strongly prepare for it, go ahead. Like I said, I think people should be able to own guns if they want to, but I highly doubt there will be "the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country" in the near future in America.

And by the way, saying ALL your information is researched means nothing if you can't actually back it up. I'm not saying that you can't, but just saying you researched something holds no weight unless you provide proof.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/28/us-dollar-usurped-china-euro-world-bank G20 President addresses U.S. dollar role
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qLp3h0opUdI/SgajmeiyfSI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/zbt4ybEmftQ/s1600-h/purchasing+power.gif Dollars purchasing power

Now this is a government website with a government calculator. This is the end result of inflation. Select 1913 for the first amount, 2009 for the second. Enter '2000' for the amount and see what you get. Then reverse the two numbers, 2009 on top and 1913 on the bottom. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl I'm dubbed a god damn conspiracy theorist for saying this. That does make me upset. No one seems to care how serious this is. I apologize for not proving proof, I had this all open when I returned home so I didn't read any new posts.

Well your first link is actually about the dollar, which while tied to your OP, is not what I was talking about. Interesting article though. Same with your picture, although, while I see that it is true, just a picure is not usually considered great evidence, since it is from blogspot, and thus could have easily been doctored. (I know that it is relativly truthful, I'm just pointing out that this is the case.)

As for your inflation calculator, it's correct, of course, but I'm sure you understand how inflation over time works, and how there are many different variables to consider when considering purchasing power. (Not to mention that inflation over 100 years is relativly irrelevant to people now.)

And towards your responce to Bissig, it's a bit ironic that you seem to freak out when someone says you are over reacting, and than state that you aren't. He never said you worship satan, he said the words you use imply a strong belief in the power of weapons. (And for the record, afaik, Bissig does not believe in God either [see his posts in "Not just a Theory."])

P.S. Ozzy said part of what I said, speech stealer. D:

[KamikOzzy]

Yours was too long to read lol

[mooseberry]

Yours was too long to read lol

I actually meant the part which I was about post, but than you said right before me:

...And towards your responce to Bissig, it's a bit ironic that you seem to freak out when someone says you are over reacting, and than state that you aren't...

Mario I think you are freaking out far too much...

 

[fleash eater]

Greetings,

Yes, there's an actual political thread on this forum. I'm not trying to talk or preach to everyone about how bad or good the U.S. is, and I'm sorry if I leave your country out. If you dislike politics but have an honest opinion that doesn't involve attacking anyone else who posts on this thread, feel free to post here. If you're a person who wants to just attack people who post here, or the person who began the topic, please do not post in this thread.

I've noticed a trend on the internet that really surprises me. People avoid talking about politics after a major election in the U.S.

Here's my opinion about this: We've established documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to protect our nation from tyranny and corruption. U.S. citizens refuse to take part in politics because it is sometimes confusing just as economics is to a lot of us. I believe we as a citizen in our country have some what of an obligation to a role in politics. CNN, MSNBC and FOX do not help our political environment here in the U.S. I know terminology and meanings sometimes can be confusing as big numbers and mathematical equations, but we have one of the most powerful tools here to help us better understand and you're using it right now. I work in Broadcasting right now. I've see how people hate these shows but turn it on these channels to see what they're going to say. In which case it gives them ratings, which contributes to keeping them on the air. Don't like the media? Turn the station.

A lot of U.S. citizens wake up everyday and they don't even know the Constitution exists. I've met these people before and it's shocking to me. I am concerned about the future of our country. I didn't even learn a hint of the Constitution until my senior year in High School. I didn't realize how important these documents were to everyday American life. In my opinion, children should at least begin learning about our Constitution in middle school. We're moving further away from these documents because people believe they're too old or they have begun to fail. These statements are faulty and high inaccurate. We should modify our Constitution from time to time; our Constitution will last for 200 more years if we protect it. The first ten amendments have been under heavy attack for nearly the last nine years. People are being arrested for peaceful assembly, arrested and detained without trail. You ARE INNOCENT until proven guilty by a panel of your peers (a jury). You are able to go to court and defend yourself against a ticket. NEVER fight the officer who issues it.

People believe there will be chaos if we keep semi-automatic weapons; but since we already have semi-automatic weapons and there are over 80 million registered gun owners in the U.S, I see no chaos. What sense would it make to remove legal weapons and let criminals keep the illegal ones? How would you like it if you're sitting at the computer right now reading this and a thief was climbing into your window knowing that there will be no resistance because we have no weapons? We have a right to protect life, liberty, and property. 'A right to a well regulated militia' is to be used as last resort. NO, being a gun owner doesn't mean you're part of a militia. Defending your property does not make you a militia member. This piece of the second amendment is the only thing that makes your Constitution still valid to this day. People believe revolting against the government is foolish, because they will easily deal with you. You have to also understand that we have service men and women who go to war to fight for the love of our country. We have fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters in the military. It is also their right to refuse orders that go against the Constitution, which they are sworn to protect from enemies, foreign and domestic. Patriots are everywhere.

Freedom of speech gives you the right to voice your respectable opinion, not the right to attack or slander someone, which I take responsibility for in some of my posts on other forums. Everyone should be given a chance to speak and address the issues. You should be able to debate, analyze and study the facts, concerns and details of ones argument and give an honest opinion back. I believe we've seen too much red and blue. Our representatives and elected officials believe it's in the best interest of either their party or the highest bidder (donator). If you serve the needs of your party or the highest bidder, you need to be removed from your position.

Freedom of assembly, as a peaceful or angry protester, you have the right to protest. Peaceful protesters should move out of the way of angry protesters to avoid being hit with teargas and rubber bullets. If you were removed from a protest and you're a law abiding citizen, then you should begin filing claims against the police department of which detained you. If your voice is not heard, then begin to demand the removal of your elected official through vote. It will get their attention. If you believe the courts are unjust, begin to remove the judges. All of this can be done by majority.

I urge you, take part in politics. It's not only for current events, but the future of our children who will be making the decisions for US later on in life.

Feel free to post your thoughts here.

"..there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it" - John F. Kennedy

p.s. Thank you for reading this long ass post all the way down to here

Amen.

[Mario]

Mario I think you are freaking out far too much. If the police came to my door with a slip of paper that said I had to give them my 45, I'd hand it to them, grumble, complain to my friends, but I wouldn't go out and join some blind rebellion. Not everyone in the states is a redneck or a gangster who thinks taking on the united states army with nothing but "street experience" for training is a good idea.

Another thing, stop making dramatic sentences like this: "I would shake your hand, and you would see the grip of a gun in a holster." It doesn't make you look badass, credible, or anything other than childish and a bit paranoid. If you walk up to *me* on the streets, I would say "hey" and give that nod thing, and then you would see that I don't carry a gun, knife, or anything else, because I'm not afraid of everything all the time. Have some courage.

If you choose not to use your right to bare arms, then that's your choice. But once weapons are gone, the rest of your rights will probably be soon to follow. I'm not trying to look like a badass, I'm telling you what you'll see, which is normal here. Of course in Bissig's town it's probably not, this is the reason why I said it. And who says I would join a rebellion? I'm not a redneck nor a gangster. If I seen you in the street I would nod back at you and keep going. Once again, anything can happen to anyone at any given time, and if I was afraid I would sit at home. I'd rather have the option of being able to use a weapon than not being able to or being able to feed myself in a certain situation than starving.

 

***Disclaimer: I am not (neccesarily) for gun control, I believe people have the right to be able to defend themselves, but when I see something like this posted, it hits somewhere in my "person spouting random crap without any evidence" nerve"***

Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.

Your logic seems quite faulty here.

First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?

Here is a list of gun ownership per capita by country As you can see, the USA is highest in civilian gun ownership by far. A country such as England only has 5.6 guns per 100 people, or about 16 times less than that of the USA. Not suprisingly while the USA has 11.6 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, England has only .038 total firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. This number seems pretty damn convincing to me. Regular police do not even carry firearms during standard patrols. Now, according to your statement, the fact that both (a.) most regular citizens do not own guns, and (b.) police do not regularly carry weapons, this would lead to a "civil war." If that were so, why is it that in the list of countries by intetentional homicide rate, the USA is 55 countries higher than England+Wales?

Therefore, unless I am somehow missing something really big, your claim that " If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours" seems unlikely considering that England has not been in a civil war since the Third English civil war, (also seen here on wikipedia) This civil war ended in the year 1651, or 234 years before the American Civil war.

Now, I am using England as a comparison because Both the USA and England Have been strong Allies for over 100 years and share much in the way of culture and other similarities. If you are still not convinced on this point, I suggest you use the links I provided (that have all countries) and do some more research yourself.

Your second statement, "You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime." is mostly wild speculation, so there isn't much I can offer you in the way of facts about this. (I say wild because I see no reason how this could possibly happen, unless you care to explain.) You can look at what I said about your first point however, to realize that gun ownership in countries usually has a strong correlation to death by guns (makes sence, doesn't it.)

On the logic side however, your statement just seems absurd. Claiming that taking away people's guns will lead to "...the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country..." just makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say I have a group of 20,000 people who want to overthrow the government, but we have no guns, now compare this same situation to 20,000 people who DO have guns, and see how your logic is flawed at best. People have used guns almost exclusivly (meaning not much more archaic technologies such as swords or spears) to fight wars since the 1700s, and an attempt to fight a war in the current day and age without guns would be extremly foolish. Also, while by definition Civil war means: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." which does not neccesarily include the government, looking at a list of civil wars, it is evident that most of these conflicts took place between the current government and a group of unsatisfied citizens. It is unlikely that there would be a conflict between the USA and its citizens on such a large scale as you claim.

You claim that society "can break at any moment also for any given reason." This seems extremly paranoid to me. In the history of the USA, never has society "totally broken" since the American civil war, which ended 144 years ago. (See link above if you don't know about the civil war.) Now, it is fine for one to take extra procedures against possible disasters, but to claim that society can break at any moment has a ring of large paranoia and/or fear spreading.

Lastly, you say "I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $." Please tell me how many times this has happened to you before in your life. While it is your choice to own a gun for this reason, please consider the implications if every person in the world thought and acted this way.

As per the above disclaimer, I believe people who have not commited crimes involving weapons have a right to purchase guns in case they should need to defend themselves, but when people make such outrages claims like this with 0 evidence, I feel the need to respond.

P.S. I kind of feel like a loser for actually posting this much, but I figured this threat deserved some actual researched posts, instead of the rambling on by people who heard stuff on tv that you usually see online.

Unless you're forgetting that people are ready to revolt if you attempt to take guns away. It's not random shit you hear on tv. The lower part of the U.S has 48 continental states and states would begin to go to into conflict with the federal government over major civil rights violations (hence civil war). States could begin taking orders from their individual governors and not the President. Succession or sovereignty could be declared by a state if a government attempts to do this. 80 million registered gun owners are aware of their rights to bare arms, and we are aware of the REST of the Constitution also. .."the right to bare arms shall NOT be infringed" is part of it. National Guardsmen and New Orleans Police took weapons from law abiding citizens in 2005; and you better believe without a doubt, it will happen again.

Please read my responce to Rocinante to understand better why I said the things I did. I assumed you were responding to the person you quoted, and not going off on a tangent, so I misread what you were saying.

As for the rest, like I said, that's fine. I never said you shouldn't be prepared for something, and while I think there is a difference between having canned food and other earthquake supplies (for California) in my house, and having a piece of metal welded to my ass to make it harder for aliens to do anal probes (just in case I'm kidnapped) if you deem collapse of the US government a real enough possiblity that you should strongly prepare for it, go ahead. Like I said, I think people should be able to own guns if they want to, but I highly doubt there will be "the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country" in the near future in America.

And by the way, saying ALL your information is researched means nothing if you can't actually back it up. I'm not saying that you can't, but just saying you researched something holds no weight unless you provide proof.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/28/us-dollar-usurped-china-euro-world-bank G20 President addresses U.S. dollar role
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qLp3h0opUdI/SgajmeiyfSI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/zbt4ybEmftQ/s1600-h/purchasing+power.gif Dollars purchasing power

Now this is a government website with a government calculator. This is the end result of inflation. Select 1913 for the first amount, 2009 for the second. Enter '2000' for the amount and see what you get. Then reverse the two numbers, 2009 on top and 1913 on the bottom. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl I'm dubbed a god damn conspiracy theorist for saying this. That does make me upset. No one seems to care how serious this is. I apologize for not proving proof, I had this all open when I returned home so I didn't read any new posts.

Well your first link is actually about the dollar, which while tied to your OP, is not what I was talking about. Interesting article though. Same with your picture, although, while I see that it is true, just a picure is not usually considered great evidence, since it is from blogspot, and thus could have easily been doctored. (I know that it is relativly truthful, I'm just pointing out that this is the case.)

As for your inflation calculator, it's correct, of course, but I'm sure you understand how inflation over time works, and how there are many different variables to consider when considering purchasing power. (Not to mention that inflation over 100 years is relativly irrelevant to people now.)

And towards your responce to Bissig, it's a bit ironic that you seem to freak out when someone says you are over reacting, and than state that you aren't. He never said you worship satan, he said the words you use imply a strong belief in the power of weapons. (And for the record, afaik, Bissig does not believe in God either [see his posts in "Not just a Theory."])

P.S. Ozzy said part of what I said, speech stealer. D:

If you specified previously which you'd like me to provide you evidence for, go ahead and list it. It's already common sense for the first thing I said about people rebelling. But I don't see how inflation is irrelevant. You used to be able to afford a lot more than you do now. Our currency is devaluating and metals are rising.

But.. you're reading text. I'm using periods not exclamations, lowercase words and not all caps. I'm sitting here at the computer reading what you're saying and typing as I do it, not over reacting. Bissig says I'm a believer in war and hate witch is not true. I'm a Christian and I do not encourage hate. You all have the right to live, yet I'm being painted as a person who wants to take life away. I'm not going to blindly kill someone. I'd rather be able to save someone than to watch them die. Protect your life, liberty and your property is what I'm trying to say.

[KamikOzzy]

Do you also carry around an inhaler, a snake venom antidote, and a tin-foil hat? Anything can happen to anyone but that doesn't mean we have to assume that it will. I'm all for having a gun, as I alluded to earlier I keep a 45 in my home, but I don't carry it around with me. I also have a 12-gauge and a .22, as does just about everyone here, so I'm not trying to say that guns should be illegal for law-abiding citizens. All I'm saying is all this "full scale riot" business is bullshit. "People are ready to revolt" is bullshit. In fact I don't think many of us are at all challenging your right to guns, what we're challenging is the extravagant scenarios you're stating will happen if the government did decide to outlaw such weaponry, and paranoia about other things that can happen, such as a total financial collapse or whatever.

What strikes a nerve with me personally is how you try and make formal-sounding writing but say things like "the right to bare arms" (I also support your right to go sleeveless), and say things like "you would see the grip of a gun in a holster" as if to shock the people in this topic. It's no sin to do it like you do, but god damn I can't read this topic anymore.

Edit: I'm a dick, I shouldn't have posted this.

[Rocinante]

Alright folks - we had a good run here.  But before things get too far out of hand, let's put it to rest.  Maybe politics was a bad idea to start things, but I was glad to see that the comments were mostly civil all around.  Kudos for not making this thread a race to the trash pile :>

[player1]

How about if we get off the guns, inflation and imminent collapse scenarios for a minute, and hear what you all think might be some of the ways we could make the US a slightly less polarized, paranoid, and politicized place in which to live.

Anybody else heard of Pattern Language or New Urbanism? Those are fancy terms that describe spaces built for people and neighborhoods built for walking, two things that lots of places in the US don't really have. Which is why we enjoy cars, guns, liquor, and cautious chin lift greetings, from across the street. Also, we could really do with a less industrial relationship to our food. Might be less trigger happy, who knows? Have you heard of forest gardening? It's going to be that or Stalking the Wild Asparagus. The America we see in A Field Guide to Sprawl is causing, and becoming, the world we see in Planet of Slums.

I heartily recommend the works of Christopher Alexander, James Howard Kunstler, and Michael Pollan to the interested reader. Also, Ron Paul on economics.

By the way, it never hurts to have a sidearm, a rifle, a shotgun, and a medkit (water and rations are good too). Just sayin'.

[Mario]

How about if we get off the guns, inflation and imminent collapse scenarios for a minute, and hear what you all think might be some of the ways we could make the US a slightly less polarized, paranoid, and politicized place in which to live.

Anybody else heard of Pattern Language or New Urbanism? Those are fancy terms that describe spaces built for people and neighborhoods built for walking, two things that lots of places in the US don't really have. Which is why we enjoy cars, guns, liquor, and cautious chin lift greetings, from across the street. Also, we could really do with a less industrial relationship to our food. Might be less trigger happy, who knows? Have you heard of forest gardening? It's going to be that or Stalking the Wild Asparagus. The America we see in A Field Guide to Sprawl is causing, and becoming, the world we see in Planet of Slums.

I heartily recommend the works of Christopher Alexander, James Howard Kunstler, and Michael Pollan to the interested reader. Also, Ron Paul on economics.

By the way, it never hurts to have a sidearm, a rifle, a shotgun, and a medkit (water and rations are good too). Just sayin'.

I believe if we went more green we'd all live a little better. We are strong enough to end our dependance on oil and start with the future. Everyone has the ability to learn how to garden and grow their own vegetables also. Communities should grow and ration the vegetables, rice, etc.. just enough to make everyone eat but not starve everyone for the rest of the season, or just let the community decide. We'd become less dependent on stores as the main source of our food. People would lose weight by going greener too. Burning corn for fuel is not an option in my opinion. We have so many ears of corn to give out to people, it's ridiculous to just burn it for fuel.

 I know if would cost a pretty penny, but if we all were able to put solar panels on our homes it would do better on the wallets also in the long run Giving out a helping hand would be nice. Let's build our own shelters for our homeless in our communities instead of waiting for it to be done by a company. I know it's impossible to shelter them all around the country, but if everyone got involved, it would be an amazing sight to see. If the shelter is small or big, it's much more better than having them living out on the street. We would be able to pass out job flyers to them also to get them back on their feet. End government dependency, and become more self-reliant.

btw, great links posted there

[janev]

Hmmm a tricky question player1

For starters no I had not heard the fancy names for those concepts but it's pretty much how things are developing in parts of Europe at the moment. Many of the old cities still have the infrastructure that makes walking places possible and capitalism allows folks to make the choice to choose(to consume less because of the cost) organically/locally grown food. Lots of people are making that choice. Damn hippies 
 
Beyond scaling back I suppose any society would benefit from less lawyers, bureaucrats and career politicians worrying about how the collective fruits of society are distributed. Suppose that extra capacity produced something of value, I am not talking about excess paperwork to heat your home with. I highly doubt there is poverty in the world because the planet lacks the potential to provide for everybody there is just not the political will to make it happen. Anyways, the point is with less wasted capacity comes more production.

This might be up your alley if you are interested in gardening and sustainability.
Dervaes family growing insane amounts on a small lot
No they are not ganja farmers but I am sure they would be damn good at it if they tried.

If everyone had something like this going on(yes, i know... it does not utilize economies of scale and is thus wasteful) you at least would have food security and a powerful instrument for democracy.. The current massively interdependent supply-chain for food could be easily disrupted, produces poorer results and provides massive leverage over the average Joe(Subject for study the Monsanto corporation).  That might also strike a cord for the bible-thumping/gun-toting/tinfoil-hat/rugged individualism types since with the power to grow your own food comes the power to tell anyone to go fuck you 

How any of this helps make

a slightly less polarized, paranoid, and politicized place in which to live.

I will let you decide since I used the extractus et anum method for a lot of this info and you can have it for exactly what you paid for it.

[player1]

Thanks for the considered replies, dudes. Nice link, janev. Very inspiring. We plan to move all of our ornamentals into one area, reduce or remove our front lawn, replace it with wildflowers and/or native grasses, and stop watering (except for food production, which is what we hope to convert our backyard into). We already grow fruit, but we're definitely adding vegetables next year. Don't have time for a real long reply right now, except to say that:

Passive Solar

Three Sisters Agriculture

and

Hemp Food

are all ideas that need to be pursued further. Cheers!

[janev]

Actually I was not kidding when I posted that link to http://www.survivalblog.com/ even if the survivalists are a little quirky they have done lots of legwork on different subjects and are a great resource. If you were to have extra time just browse through the archives and you will be surprised what you may find. It is not all about aliens toting anal-probes or black helicopters. That site is actually pretty sane all things considered. /end of shameless advertisement./

Some other things you might be interested in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass
If you get the calculations done right you get a house that requires very little extra power to heat and cool. First of course you need to get the money :<

Upgrading lighting low energy bulbs / LEDS and making use of daylight whenever possible

I don't know what part of the states you live in so I can't really say anything else. Florida and Wisconsin will lead to different requirements but invariably the tinfoil hat boys will have war-gamed it and found a decent solution. :>

[Bissig]

Actually I was not kidding when I posted that link to http://www.survivalblog.com/ even if the survivalists are a little quirky they have done lots of legwork on different subjects and are a great resource. If you were to have extra time just browse through the archives and you will be surprised what you may find. It is not all about aliens toting anal-probes or black helicopters. That site is actually pretty sane all things considered. /end of shameless advertisement./

Some other things you might be interested in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass
If you get the calculations done right you get a house that requires very little extra power to heat and cool. First of course you need to get the money :<

Upgrading lighting low energy bulbs / LEDS and making use of daylight whenever possible

I don't know what part of the states you live in so I can't really say anything else. Florida and Wisconsin will lead to different requirements but invariably the tinfoil hat boys will have war-gamed it and found a decent solution. :>

In Germany new houses already have to be built to certain energy conserving standards and old houses have to have their old central heating units replaced by modern, energy saving ones. Many new houses built in high density areas are "low energy" or even "zero energy" which means they (almost) need no outside supply for heating. A few "plus energy" houses exist too I believe, which overall produce more energy than they consume. I think that is they way to go.

The U.S. will have to get off the cheap thin walled wooden houses though to achieve this and also get rid off the pointless ACs. ACs may work for skyscrapers but they are very inefficient to heat flats and single houses.

Futuristic:

http://www.plusenergiehaus.de/index.php?noflash=true&pageID=25

Passive house:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house

Zero energy building:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_building

[janev]

Nice links Bissig. Yeah those triple pane windows are nice and make a big difference for a minimal investment(provided the rest of the insulation in the house is up to spec). That first link is interesting for those who understand german, how many of those have been made and when will they be in mass-production?

I will have to disagree about the no A/C thing though. Just produce the energy using renewables and use efficient A/C systems so you do not have to give up on comfort in older buildings. I found the Germans to be pretty anal about the A/C thing but on other subjects they are seemingly lax/ignorant (plastic bottles, big cars and vacations to exotic places come to mind). It was really no fun for this Finn to be in Baden-Württemberg without A/C this summer .

Geothermal heat pumps

Heh, how did we get here from US politics again?

[player1]

Hopefully we won't be afraid to learn from other cultures, and maybe in the future we'll heat our homes more efficiently, like with underfloor heating and russian ovens.

[Bissig]

Well, Nr.1 and this is my experience from the place I work at: ACs make the air very dry and uncomfortable. I wear contact lenses and I am glad it is getting colder outside again so we can turn off that damn AC. ACs are not energy efficient and in the summer I WANT heat else I would move to the polar circle. Also, in the U.S. they turn the temperature far lower on average. Europeans get colds when they visit the U.S. in summer, because the difference between the temperature outside and the temperature inside of buildings is so big.

Nr2.: Well, plastic bottles get recycled. We now have bottle deposit on anything from beer to whine bottle. People collect those and give them back and they are getting recycled. And we still have glas. The usage of glas bottles has dropped, but beer is almost always sold in glas bottles aswell as whine and many fruit drinks and sparkling water.

Nr.3:

No, the first design is very radical and needs lots of space. You can't build it in a densly populated city because it turns with the sun and needs an environment that does not block sunlight. It also is some sort of a prototype and object of research. It is like the solution that has almost perfect efficiency, but is also a bit expensive.

Many people already use small geothermal heat pumps to increase the efficiency of the central heating system.

The thing people in this country are anal about is sorting the trash into metals, plastic, paper and waste. And the cars. You are totally right about that. Gas price isn't high enough yet, it seems.

[player1]

Don't forget - plastic ends up here!



so glad we didn't make that stuff out of something biodegradable like hemp or corn starch

yay, oil companies (now synthesize some fake hormones so frogs can take estrogen)