UN says that it is possible that Saddam did have WMDs

[Xarin]

Thanks. I still think that such a society would become horrible though.

And I think it's the only kind of society that wouldn't be horrible. Anything else is slavery.

But in a country where you couldn't buy guns as easily those gang members wouldn't be armed in the first place.

Nice theory. Too bad it doesn't work that way in the real world. Most criminals in this country get their weapons on the black market. Furthermore, people who have handguns to defend themselves are statistically less likely to come to harm when attacked by a criminal. Even less likely than someone who just passively submits.

[Psycho Pixie]

Every form of government has positives and negatives. I am an American and I can comfortably agree that our system of government could use a few changes. Doesn't mean it will happen. Our system is a bit too slow for any real change to happen over night.

Other forms of government are not perfect either. There NEVER will be a form of Governing that will satisfy every person in the country or around the world.

you know, this thread has covered Saddam, Political groups, gun laws, and democray debate... All without truely pissing anyone off from what I can see. woohoo. good political thread.

Psycho Pixie

[The Industriallist]

At this point it is way too late to disarm the US civilians and criminals. But in general, I have to say I somewhat favor the idea of strong, common personal weapons. It has all the advantages of the cold war mutual deterrance, but without the 'killing millions or billions of innocent bystanders over who gets to control <insert small, despotic third world country here>' part.

Only, say, semiautomatic weapons, though. Not machine guns and explosives, or you get into serious collateral damage.

And yes, american 'democracy' needs to be torn down and rebuilt. But who's going to do it?

@pixie: Pirog seems pretty pissed to me

[rklenseth]

To Pirog:

I got this from another thread where in Australia the government in Victoria is supposedly trying to ban swords.

16098.9 in reply to 16098.7

I wonder if a machete would count? Or crocodile Dundee`s knife?
There has been a saying floating around in regards to gun control, "if they ban guns, can we use swords?". I always thought it was a joke.

I think this whole thing should serve as a prime example to those people who think banning assualt weapons is a good idea, or registering ANY guns. They say we can keep our hunting rifles, then we have to get rid of those and get single shots, then we have to keep the single shots in a central location, then we have to give up all rifles and hunt with shotguns, then we have to give up the shotguns because they are a "military" caliber weapon, then they take our hunting knives away to!!!! The government wants a populace of bawling sheep.

Democracy is two wolves voting to eat a lamb. Freedom is one well armed lamb disputing the vote!

You can read the rest of the thread here:

http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/m ... sg=16098.1

[Pirog]

Xarin>

And I think it's the only kind of society that wouldn't be horrible. Anything else is slavery.

So it isn't slavery when the market is so poorly regulated that the strong owns all the industries, all the money and all the power while the weak ones work their asses of for practically no pay?

Nice theory. Too bad it doesn't work that way in the real world. Most criminals in this country get their weapons on the black market. Furthermore, people who have handguns to defend themselves are statistically less likely to come to harm when attacked by a criminal. Even less likely than someone who just passively submits.

And how do you think weapons end up on the black market?
You can prove anything by statistics, but in Sweden it is very hard to come by a gun...and that has also lead to guns being very uncommon even amongst criminals.
And yes, I agree that when you are in the violence spiral, where every old lady has a handcannon in her purse, you are at greater risk if you are unarmed. But in a society where you can't buy guns like you do with you every day shopping there would be no reason to arm yourself.
It is the job of the police to take care of criminals...not civilians who have seen to many action movies on TV.

The Industrialist>

Pirog seems pretty pissed to me

I'm really not...

Lenseth>

I don't get the point.
You find the idea of making it illegal to walk around with swords a bad idea?
It's ironic that you are using Australians as arguments for banning guns...a country more Wild West than your own

Is carrying swords around legal in USA? I find that very strange...

[rklenseth]

Yes, carrying swords around in the US is legal but I think it varies from state to state. Like in New York, it is illegal to have a switchblade, butterfly knife but you can go up to Vermont and buy one because it isn't illegal up there.

But the point being made was that in Australia they made handguns illegal then they made assault rifles illegal, then rifles, then shotguns and anything considered military caliber (I think that is 50mm or more, not sure), and now they are making sword illegal and the guy is saying next they'll make knives illegal and then what have you got to defend yourself with.

The point that is trying to make is that the government is making you all mere sheep to be slaughtered. Once you have nothing to defend yourself with then the government can get away with anything it wants. Why do they need a vote when they can hold a gun to your head and tell you how it is going to be? I think you rely to heavily on the hope that onyl good people will be in power but eventually bad people will come to power and how will yuo defend yourself against them? Sticks and stones but then again they will be probably illegal to have too.

Maybe your right and none of these bad people exist in this day of age or will come in our lives but won't that screw the future of the children because it is inevitable that bad people will come to power.

About your comments to Xarin; I think you think that Libertarians support big business. Tell me if I'm wrong though. But they don't. Libertarians believe in more local business. Thus while the Libertarians would support the existence of these big businesses and their right to be there they also support the right of the people to buy from them.

But the problem with your anology of big business abusing the people is that most of these occurances happened with the support of the government. They didn't simply happen because the government ignored it but because the government supported it. There is a difference. If it is supported by the government then that leaves at least one consumer for said business. So the business doesn't have to worry about alienating and abusing the people because they don't have to fear about them buying it as well as if it is supported by the government it usually means that that is the only type of that product that can found because the government regulates or bans the other types of that product. Such as the US government in the 1800's banning hemp as a form of paper to help the lumber business.

Now under the Libertarian ideals are that government should be weak so that it cannot abuse the people and spit on their rights. Big business has the right to exist but yet should they try to abuse or hurt the people then the people will stop buying their product which would essentially put them out of business.

Plus, if you are going to say that if the government doesn't regulate the economy then Big Business will abuse the people then you must understand that the Government regulating the economy does the same thing. Look at the Soviet Union. Ever see "Moscow on the Hudson"? It is a great film. The poor people still got the essentials but far less then they actually earned while the wealthy were still at the top living in luxury. Nothing really changes in a communal system. The poor are still at the bottom while the wealthy are still at the top. The way I see it is that Libertarian ideals at least allow the poor to get the top if they so choose and succeed at it. While a communal system you are most likely stuck at the bottom for good unless a miracle of sorts happens.

Another thing about Libertarians is at least you have a choice whereas in a communal system you do not have a choice.

[Pirog]

But the point being made was that in Australia they made handguns illegal then they made assault rifles illegal, then rifles, then shotguns and anything considered military caliber (I think that is 50mm or more, not sure), and now they are making sword illegal and the guy is saying next they'll make knives illegal and then what have you got to defend yourself with.

Knives are not allowed in populated areas in Sweden...and still the government hasn't tried to take over.
I think the idea of keeping all kinds of weapons at home just in case the government turns back is ridiculous...
First of all it is paranoid, and secondly the risk of undemocratic and well armed people overthrowing a fair government is much bigger than the government turning on its people.

Once you have nothing to defend yourself with then the government can get away with anything it wants. Why do they need a vote when they can hold a gun to your head and tell you how it is going to be? I think you rely to heavily on the hope that onyl good people will be in power but eventually bad people will come to power and how will yuo defend yourself against them?

The risk of a government turning corrupt, turning on the its people and getting support by its military should be extremly small in a modern democratic society. And if it does I don't think a couple of thousand untrained hillbillies with rifles and handguns will be more than a nuisance...

Maybe your right and none of these bad people exist in this day of age or will come in our lives but won't that screw the future of the children because it is inevitable that bad people will come to power.

There is always a theoretical risk...but negative effects of having a cilivial population armed to the teeth doesn't outweigh the microscopical risk of a civil war in my eyes...

About your comments to Xarin; I think you think that Libertarians support big business. Tell me if I'm wrong though. But they don't. Libertarians believe in more local business. Thus while the Libertarians would support the existence of these big businesses and their right to be there they also support the right of the people to buy from them.

If Libertarians believe in total freedom they really shouldn't have an opinion about large businesses...

Big business has the right to exist but yet should they try to abuse or hurt the people then the people will stop buying their product which would essentially put them out of business.

People aren't that smart. Look at how the industry looks today. People pays more for the idea/image of the product than the product itself...and that is pure manipulation from the companies.

Plus, if you are going to say that if the government doesn't regulate the economy then Big Business will abuse the people then you must understand that the Government regulating the economy does the same thing. Look at the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was a horrible mistake in pretty much everything, so I don't think it is relevant to use it as an example...

Another thing about Libertarians is at least you have a choice whereas in a communal system you do not have a choice.

I think that is just a myth.
In what ways are Americans more free than for example Swedes?

[ephiroll]

I just want to point out that there aren't a "couple of thousand untrained hillbillies with rifles and handguns" in the US. Just the independent militia groups (armed with militay grade weaponry) if all combined would probly equal more then 50,000 and that's probly a very low estimate, I wouldn't be surprised it the acutal number wasn't as much as 10 times that if the truth be told (but it won't be because most people in the groups don't advertise the fact), and they are trained, there are people who train with their respect groups as much if not more then our National Guard members train. Add onto that the couple million or so gun permits issued in the US (but you don't need a permit for a rifle or shotgun so people which those weapons aren't counted) then figure probly about 1/4 of the people with permits practice regulary, and anyone with a rifle or shotgun probly enjoys hunting (I'm perssonally familiar with all types of shotguns and most rifles due to hunting, and am familiar with with basic function of pistols and automatic weapons despite never having fired one ) so if you take all those people, throw in lawenforcement officiers and their weapons, and you come up with what coudl be a very large army, and that still isn't counting Coast Guard, National Guards, and retired military figures which would be counted as part of the regular military. There are about 73 million males age 15-49 in the US, with about 2 million reaching military age annually, put guns in all those hands (which is probly what would happen if someone landed on our shore) and no invading force would have a chance.

I'm not worried about the government trying anything, and I think whatever risk it adds to everyday life is acceptable when compared with the benefits it gives us: 1. The government isn't going to try anthing because they know it would result in civil war. 2. If another country is actually stupid enough to invade us they basically have a whole country to fight that is armed, perssonally I'd be very nervous about living in a country where I wasn't able to get my hands on a weapon if I needed it, even if the government doesn't try something, you would still be at the mercy of any invaders so if the army that is sopposed to be protecting you fails then you have zero options left except learning a new language. The risk of living in an armed society like the US is in my eyes very acceptable to the alternative, basically if the sh*t goes down I want to be able to (and will) shoot back.

[Pirog]

ephiroll>

I just want to point out that there aren't a "couple of thousand untrained hillbillies with rifles and handguns" in the US.

Oh, I was refering to Sweden...but that was of course not so easy for you to understand

I understand your point, so I guess it just comes down to what kind of trust you have in your government and neighbours.
Perhaps we are closer to our politicians in a small country like Sweden. Many of our top politicians doesn't even have body guards...

If a foreign power invaded my country I doubt very much that I would even want to go out and fight as a guerilla soldier. War is for soldiers, and if they fail Sweden has allies that will help us out.
Perhaps it's my lack of faith in the slowly dying nationalism that makes me that unpatriotic, but I really see no point in dying for my country...

[ephiroll]

Oops , but I'm sure Sweden has alot more punch then you're giving them credit for, check this out http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/fa ... l#Military

And just for the record, I don't see it as dieing for the country, I see it has protecting what I have, my way of life, and the people I care about. I would willingly die for those three things, but not for my country. Most people probly won't see much difference, but I do.

[Pirog]

It's ironic that you try to ridicule the Swedish army.

Yes, they are conscripts...but those conscripts have won over American Navy Seals the latest years in competitions between different nations special forces. Just so you know...

And just for the record, I don't see it as dieing for the country, I see it has protecting what I have, my way of life, and the people I care about. I would willingly die for those three things, but not for my country. Most people probly won't see much difference, but I do.

Yes, your compassion for protecting your way of life and the people you care about is very honorable. Especially when motivated like you did in the topic about the drafts...

*shrugs* I could care less if the draft is instated and the reason is two words, ONLY SON

[ephiroll]

Ridicule the Swedish army? I never did nor ever have, you're the only who called the Swedish population a bunch of "rednecks and hillbillies" I don't know what the hell you're thinking but you've got something a more then a little mixed up.

And if you were paying attention you would understand that only "only son" comment is merely pointed out that if a draft was instated why I wouldn't be bothered by it, not implying that I'm not willing to fight, but that if/when I do it will be my own free choice, not because I sat at home dreading to have my name pulled out of a hat, you're twisting my words and putting words in my mouth to suit your own thoughts.

[Pirog]

Hehe, it looks like we are both good at misunderstanding.
I never meant to talk about the Swedes has hillbillies and rednecks...that was meant for the gun crazy people who distrust the government and think packing arms are the solution.

But what purpose did you have to post that link?
It can hardly be a way to prove that Swedens army is strong...because it sure doesn't look that way in the report.

[ephiroll]

Then I guess we're even so far But the Swedist army by the numbers isn't as weak as alot of countries, weak in comparison to countries like the US, Russia, China, India and some of the other larger places, but not nearly as weak as most of the countries in Africa or the middle east, but
"after completing their initial service, soldiers have a reserve commitment until the age of 47" means that Sweden could field a higher percentage of <i>trained</i> men then other countries of comparable size, those men being trained in modern warfare and armed with modern weapons, therefore Sweden is much stronger then the numbers alone indicate.

By the way, that link is to the CIA World Factbook which has been updated for 2004, and contains much more then military strenght for every country in the world.

[Pirog]

Oh, yeah...I see your point.
I think Sweden would fair well in a war where we would merely have to defend ourselves, but luckily I think we won't have to see war for a long time.

I think that Swedens politcy of trying to solve problems on peaceful ways is more effective than waging war. Our preparation for terrorist attacks in totally useless, but then again I don't think many terrorist organisations have Sweden on their list of targets...because they have more to lose by attacking us than they gain.

Many people thinks of terrorists as crazy people willing to blow themselves up as long as they take a couple of westerners with them...but they are people with feelings and thoughts just like everybody else. If you take the Israel/Palestine conflict for example. Your government is practically the only one giving them support for their actions...I can understand the desperation many Palestinians feel.