The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[Easy Bakes 253]

[metarvo 710]

You know, I think the country may be between a rock and a hard place with incidents like these.  There seem to be two paths.  One involves banning or severely limiting the right to bear arms, which may be deemed to violate the 2nd Amendment.  Many people won't want that.  The other path involves adequately dealing with the mentally ill, which could be construed as a politically incorrect violation of civil rights.  A significant number of people won't approve of that, either.

[Metalpuritan 160]

 

Our gun rights are not up for debate.  This shooting as with all shootings, have little or nothing to do with guns at all.  Yes, they used guns, but their acts do not have anything to do with guns.  Gun rights are not up for debate.  Even debating gun rights is a violation of our second amendment.  I might even go so far as to say anyone who would be willing to allow our gun rights to come under debate is mentally ill in some capacity.  To think that someone would willingly give up something as inalienable as their basic rights, well that just sounds like insanity to me... A person like that would have to be gripped with fear so tightly they have lost all sight of reality hence, insane.  Owned by their emotions, again, insane.  A complete and total loss of judgement, of course, insane.

Pff, using your First Amendment rights to discuss the Second Amendment rights....INSANITY! Not to mention illegal, because the Second Amendment totally states that it is excempt from critical evaluation or the First Amendment. 

 

Yes, yes, yes.  We all know how like to take things people say out of context and twist them to fit your own agenda.

 

We can talk about gun rights all you want, but it is not up for debate.  I don't know if I have ever said this here before, perhaps not, but it goes something like this:  You need to be willing to fight, kill, go to prison and/or die for whatever it is you say and do, if you are not willing to fight, kill, go to prison and/or die for whatever it is you are saying and doing then you are probably doing or saying something wrong.  There are billions of people out there that think just like that too.  In order to stop someone from doing or saying something you need to be willing and able to put out the same amount or more effort than they are putting out to stop them.  Basically unless you are willing to pick up a gun to kill someone with a gun to take their gun away then you might as well just give up now.

 

I have a laminated copy of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights right here.  No matter what anyone does to or against it, I am going to uphold it at any and all costs.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There is no point in arguing about the right to bear arms and the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.  However, I deny that the right to bear arms is an inalienable human right.  That is carrying things a little far.

 

The founding fathers of the United States lived in parlous times, and could not have foreseen the next couple of hundred years of development into the decadent society we have become.  In their era, the musket was the fire arm available.  I am all in favour of replacing all firearms in the United States with muskets.  Barrel loaders would probably suit many people, and having to know something about your weapon besides just point and shoot would probably be a good thing.

 

However, this can never be the case.  The cat is clearly out of the bag and it has turned out to be a sabre-toothed tiger.  I doubt it will ever be possible to bag it again.

 

What is needed is a kinder, gentler society with less emphasis on aggression and more on cooperation.

[AcmeSigns 97]

I am a staunchly pro gun advocate. I am also staunchly on the 'pro' side of every other Constitutional amendment. I, unlike some others, do not pick-and-choose which Constitutional Amendments I support. I support them all with equal fervor. I don't want anyone's rights trampled upon just to protect someone who thinks that their opinion matters more than anyone else's or that their 'rights'  trump all others. Remember, there are politicians on the left that believe that it is the government that issues 'rights' to the citizens. No, mostly what Government and the Legislature does is limit what rights we have remaining.

 

Anti-gunners are always saying that pro-gunners are unwilling to 'compromise'. Compromise, to me at least, means a 'give and take'. Just what, pray tell, are the anti-gunners giving up? No...it's all about pro-gunners giving up some/all of their rights to appease those that think the 300+ million gun-owners in this country are all potential criminals. If that was the way I thought then I'd presume that everyone that lives in San Francisco is a liberal-pinko-gay. Or that anyone that watches Honey Boo-Boo is a potential child molester. Or that anyone that drives a car will one day, surely,  hurl it into a crowd of people.

 

Yes...yelling 'fire in a theater is an infringement on free speech but that is because it has the real potential to cause other people harm. Yes...the Government defines what religion 'is' but that has more to do with folks looking to sidestep the I.R.S. And yet, the Government wants to infringe upon my 2nd Amendment rights when I have done nothing wrong or illegal.

 

And the 'left' is just as likely to take complete control of the country in an 'emergency' (real or imagined) as the 'right'. After all, they could then 'legally' tell us all exactly how we should be living our lives. As opposed to trying to accomplish it piecemeal through legislation they way they do now (ObamaCare comes to mind). If the 'right' is so big on taking control why didn't they do so on 9/11? Seemed like the perfect situation to declare Marshall Law to me. And yet...

 

edit to Nonny...does that mean that the Military and Law Enforcement will also only be using Muskets? Because if so...I'm all for that.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think if I became President (and I could never do this as I was born in Adelaide, obv, so this is purely hypothetical) I would ignore 'anti-gunnists'. I think one very very very very very times infinity good argument that was just given is the motor car. Sure, ban guns. Fine. No more violence.

 

Wrong.

 

A motor car can accelerate very quickly. Not as quickly as a bullet, but if it hits you at just 50 kph, that will do as much if not more damage. Getting run over is as lethal as any old bit of metal flying through the air. And mentally ill people are given licences to motors. Until cars are robo-powered flying Jetsonic models, the gun debate is silly. Anyone can buy a car in the US, whether ex-con or not. 

 

Also I wholeheartedly condone and approve of Moose's most excellent suggestion to reintroduce the good old musket. Flintlocks are where its at imho, but this revolver nonsense... Bah. Modern insanity.

[Cobraroll 138]

A motor car is a murder weapon you can usually use once, on even, large surfaces (mostly confined to outdoors settings), at great risk to yourself. You can't confine it on your person, it will take several seconds to prepare it for a kill, and you have to be up close to the victim for it to work. Hitting people with enough force to kill them will also leave notable dents in your car, marking it as a murder weapon for everybody to see. As far as murder weapons go, that'sterribly inefficient. Luckily, they have other uses that greatly benefit society, and a significant majority of car owners operate their vehicles safely, with no intent of ever using it to kill somebody.

Handguns, on the other hand, are apparatuses (apparati?) designed with the sole purpose of killing, with little risk or loss of comfort for the user. Not exactly things I'd want everybody to own. I guess you could want them to protect yourself from other gun owners, to "level the playing field". In which case I seriously question what level you'd wish to level the field at. Guns become more deadly and easier to use by the generation.

 

Then again... I suppose I shouldn't care. I have the option (and the intent!) to avoid the most gun-toting places in the world as if they were plague-ridden. I hope that kind of gun culture won't reach my place in my lifetime.

[LexusInfernus 908]

And the 'left' is just as likely to take complete control of the country in an 'emergency' (real or imagined) as the 'right'. After all, they could then 'legally' tell us all exactly how we should be living our lives. As opposed to trying to accomplish it piecemeal through legislation they way they do now (ObamaCare comes to mind). If the 'right' is so big on taking control why didn't they do so on 9/11? Seemed like the perfect situation to declare Marshall Law to me. And yet...

 

edit to Nonny...does that mean that the Military and Law Enforcement will also only be using Muskets? Because if so...I'm all for that.

Uhm, did you forget about the Patriot Act? Pretty sure that thing is one big civil rights violating piece of legislation. 

 

But the real reason they didn't take over the country is because they are not all inherently dictators and tyrants just waiting for a moment to grasp total control over the country. The United States has a strong democratic tradition, everyone is raised with the idea that democracy is a good thing, and as a result, the people who work in the government also believe in democracy as a good thing. They will not just throw that all away because they can. They are not the tyrannical crooks you make them out to be. 

[AcmeSigns 97]

I didn't forget about the Patriot Act (I wasn't in favor of it in the 1st place and voiced my opinion of such to my elected representatives ~ not that that did a fat lot of good)...and neither has President Obama. If anything, he's strengthened and expanded it. Wouldn't that make him more tyrannical than the former President Bush that everyone so despised?

[AkemiAzula 280]

A motor car can run over a person without it making a 'dent'. Think about roadkill. Mythbusters demonstrates this. Also a larger car like a pickup/ute can do more damage much easier. Acceleration can be done quickly, and a sudden turn if done correctly...

 

Guns take skill to use. Unless you're up close and personal with your victim they require as much skill as a car to manouvere correctly, especially if your intended victim is on the run. 

 

Anyway my point is that if a killer is determined enough they'll find a weapon. Banning firearms is silly. Yes they are 'designed for' killing, in that they have little other function. But this doesn't mean that banning guns will solve the crime issue. 

[Duke87 1,070]

You know, I think the country may be between a rock and a hard place with incidents like these.  There seem to be two paths.  One involves banning or severely limiting the right to bear arms, which may be deemed to violate the 2nd Amendment.  Many people won't want that.  The other path involves adequately dealing with the mentally ill, which could be construed as a politically incorrect violation of civil rights.  A significant number of people won't approve of that, either.

 

The first can never be done on a national level because there are a not insignificant number of people out there who will sooner use their guns against anyone attempting to take them away than give them up just because the law says they have to. A massive confiscation of firearms would result in massive casualties among the police and military forces implementing it, as well as massive civilian casualties (anyone standing up for their right to bear arms would likely have to be killed in the process).

 

Furthermore, you can't even pass such a law without the supreme court striking it down. You'd have to amend the constitution to take that right away and that will NEVER happen because you will NEVER gather the necessary support.

 

 

As for the second path (which is more what I'd advocate), the problem isn't that it's a civil rights violation to extend mental health care to people... the problem is that government programs to do that would be unpopular in much of the country because "ZOMG SOCIALISM!".

 

Even if we don't have government programs for it, though, you can still fix the way the private sector deals with it. A lot of health insurance plans do not cover mental health care at all, or only cover it in a very limited capacity. This means that good mental health care is out of the reach of anyone whose family is not decently well off. Hell, I have my own share of mental issues and I probably wouldn't be where I am today if my parents weren't able to afford to send me to a shrink once a week for much of my childhood and pay out of pocket for it all. And there are tons of people out there with various mental issues - I've met plenty of them personally - who have not had the same opportunity I've had in life, in large part because their families were not as well off and not able to give their children the care I received. How messed up is that? We as a society shun and stigmatize people who have mental health problems rather than looking to help them, and that right there is a philosophical problem.

 

Of course, what I said above hints at another reason why health insurance plans often skimp on mental health coverage: mental healthcare can get very expensive and it also tends to be very long in duration - no one can ever really be "cured" of a mental disability, they can only be helped to manage their issues. So, as a simple value proposition, people have decided they aren't willing to pay the higher rates necessary to have that coverage available.

 

You need to be willing to fight, kill, go to prison and/or die for whatever it is you say and do, if you are not willing to fight, kill, go to prison and/or die for whatever it is you are saying and doing then you are probably doing or saying something wrong.

 

And if I value my own self-preservation above all else, and think that dying or going to prison for a cause is insane, what does that make me?

[Meg 368]

 

You know, I think the country may be between a rock and a hard place with incidents like these.  There seem to be two paths.  One involves banning or severely limiting the right to bear arms, which may be deemed to violate the 2nd Amendment.  Many people won't want that.  The other path involves adequately dealing with the mentally ill, which could be construed as a politically incorrect violation of civil rights.  A significant number of people won't approve of that, either.

 

The first can never be done on a national level because there are a not insignificant number of people out there who will sooner use their guns against anyone attempting to take them away than give them up just because the law says they have to. A massive confiscation of firearms would result in massive casualties among the police and military forces implementing it, as well as massive civilian casualties (anyone standing up for their right to bear arms would likely have to be killed in the process).

 

Furthermore, you can't even pass such a law without the supreme court striking it down. You'd have to amend the constitution to take that right away and that will NEVER happen because you will NEVER gather the necessary support.

 

 

 

 

I believe that is an accurate summation.    I have had many conversations with people who do not understand this.  

 

Duke is not exaggerating here.     It is a mindset that is foreign to many people but it is what the situation is.

[Metalpuritan 160]

 

 

And if I value my own self-preservation above all else, and think that dying or going to prison for a cause is insane, what does that make me?

 

The word "if" there is suspicious to me. as if maybe to bait me into saying something I might regret?  it is kind of shady really, like you don't want to commit to anything.  No worries though, I have no fear, I am going to commit fully to your query.

 

A coward.  I don't want to fight, kill, go to prison and/or die for my beliefs so I just won't believe in anything. I can't help but give a little chuckle at that.

 

I do not actually believe that is the case with you though.  I too was just such a person at one point in time.  It was all about me, me, me, me.  I used to sing this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnFMH68yvB0 like it was my mantra.  That was back in 2001.  But I was so wrong, so so so wrong, I have never been more wrong in my entire life.  I lost my freedom shortly after that, wound up in jail, got clean and sober and realized this is not what life was about.  Upon my release I repaired everything that was wrong with me.  My family, the wounds and rifts I had caused in my selfish cowardice, I began to work on and mend.  I got rid of the people who did not care about me and those whom I did not care about, they weren't friends, they were just people I had met and erroneously perceived them as friends.  A year later I was now surrounded by people that were willing to die for me and I for them in return.  But that is just the beginning of the tale.

 

There are people you know and love and I am willing to bet my life on you not wanting to lose them at and at any cost.  Everyone has something to lose, even if that something is not an item of some sort, a trinket.  You, yourself, you live in New York, at least your profile says so, and if that is the case, you have your freedom.  I posit one hypothetical to your own hypothetical, if you were to be kidnapped by someone and held against your will, but you were in a room with your captor and your captor was the only thing standing between you and your freedom and he won't let you leave without killing him, do you just crawl into the corner and die?  No, you will fight, you may die in the process, but you will fight.  It is just hypothetical of course.

 

I am lucky to be aware of the things I will protect with every fiber of my being.  I have gone through a lot, a lot more than what is posted here  but one thing I do know, everybody has something they will die for, even if they do not know what it is yet, they just haven't been tested.

 

If our country went to war, a REAL war. a draft would be enacted, there won't be any volunteers, and everyone will fight, that is what REAL war is.  I can think of many different scenarios where this can happen.  If Iran was allowed to make a nuclear bomb and they were stupid enough to set one off here, we would go to full scale war, our industrial complex would be changed from capitalist to military, there would be nobody who would not be putting forth to the war effort, it would be war on the scale of WWII, it might not be called a world war, but it would be on that scale.  We would strike back as if Pearl Harbor had just happened, again, and everyone would back this war, likely even you.  And you too would be putting your life on the line.  If not for yourself then for future generations.  The reality of that would come very quickly.

 

As for the gun debate....well, I have had a gun pulled on me by a group punk ass kids before, they tried to rob me, I got away but I was definitely scared and ran literally for my life.  A month or so later another completely different group of kids tried to murder me with their car.  When the kids tried to rob me, I was on my way home from a friend's house, when the kids tried to kill me with their car I was on my way home from work.  The kids who tried to kill me with their car almost succeeded.  Luckily I went over the car instead of under it or I would not be here today.  I ended up with cuts, gashes and large scrapes from the pavement and bruises ALL over my body and a massive concussion.  I fought for my life that day.  When people have the flu they say  "I feel like have been hit by a truck."  They obviously have no idea what getting hit by a truck feels like, I know I do and the flu doesn't feel anything like that at all.  I wish I didn't have to know what it feels like to be hit by a vehicle, but that is a bell that cannot be unrung.

 

I am armed now and justifiably so, there is no way that anyone can give an argument good enough to change my mind on that.  I hope to God that these things never occur again, but I can assure you that next time, someone is going to pay with their life and I am going to try my hardest to make sure it is not me.  I was just on my way home from work, after a days work at that job, I looked like a bum, clothes with holes in them, ink all over, a total mess, didn't even look like I had something to steal, so they tried to murder me for fun, the only logical explanation and it is not even logical.  You stop people from acting like this, I might consider putting my gun down, maybe, depends on if I believe it or not.  

 

The only thing I have to say is, people, know where your kids are, because you do not want them putting me in danger, if it is me or your kid, well, I am going to choose me every time.  People can pass all the laws they want, it won't matter, as long as people are killing people for no reason, I am staying armed, illegally if I have to, you can take that to the bank.  I would rather get caught with it than be caught without it.  Those people, not a one of them were ever arrested for the crimes they committed.  They probably grew up and moved on and actually killed someone else, they have gotten caught for that or they may still be out there.

 

To those who would ban guns or support banning guns:  These were completely and totally random acts of violence.  I am a very fit human too, an example of my fitness, I can ride a bike standing up at about 15 miles per hour up very steep hills for prolonged amounts of time, and still have enough energy to bike another 20 or so miles or more, I live in a very hilly city and use a bicycle for only source of transportation aside from the local buses and I don't even use those often because riding the bike is more fun and sometimes faster than riding the bus, it is also cheaper.  The point is, I don't look like a target, I don't look like a mark, I don't wear any jewelry, I don't wear any fancy clothes, I don't even have a nice cellphone or MP3 player or anything.  So if this can happen to me it can happen to YOU.  I can tell you this, that group of kids that pulled the gun one me, the youngest was likely about 10 years old, the oldest there was likely only about 13 or 14, the kids in the car(one of them got out of the car, he tried to ambush me and I evaded him, they picked him back up and continued to pursue me), he couldn't have been any older than 15 or 16.  It was like having a stroke in a way, anyone can have one at any time.  In a situation like that you WISH you had a gun.  You call the cops and they show up and they question you like you were the one who broke the law, like it was your fault somehow, like it was just an accident and you know they are never even going to so much as look for them, you will wish you had a gun, well, if you live anyway.  I was bleeding from about every point I had on my body, bleeding badly and blood everywhere and they are sitting there asking me why someone would try to do that to me and ask me if I provoked them in some way... 

 

So do whatever you want to do, I will maintain my rights with or without you and your support.  I would actually support a civil war against those who would try to erode our rights.  I think the benefits would far outweigh the negatives in the long term.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Heh, just to comment on the total war bit. Yeah, thats not going to happen anymore. At least not within the forseeable future. Total wars are...well, rather costly. To put it simply, the United States cannot afford any more total wars. But that is okay, because a total war is also unnecessary. Why bother wasting every resource you have on supporting the military when you already have an army that can invade and occupy a country? Of course, its less capable of dealing with the subsequent insurrection, but a total war mindset won't help you effectively win or prevent that as well. 

 

No, for now World War 2 was the last total war, and it will likely remain like that. 

[Metalpuritan 160]

Heh, just to comment on the total war bit. Yeah, thats not going to happen anymore. At least not within the forseeable future. Total wars are...well, rather costly. To put it simply, the United States cannot afford any more total wars. But that is okay, because a total war is also unnecessary. Why bother wasting every resource you have on supporting the military when you already have an army that can invade and occupy a country? Of course, its less capable of dealing with the subsequent insurrection, but a total war mindset won't help you effectively win or prevent that as well. 

 

No, for now World War 2 was the last total war, and it will likely remain like that. 

Saying that seems like such a large gamble....

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think we'd all secretly love to have a gun in such situations. Even if, yes, the police might blame you for what happens because you end up winning. However in a world without guns people would use knives or illegal guns. And as MP so plainly pointed out, a motor car is every bit as much of a killer weapon as a hand gun. If you want to commit random acts of madness you'll find a way. Boiling water, bricks, alligators for goodness sake. There is always a way to be stupid if you are thatway inclined. Banning guns is like banning maths homework because schools are evil.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The probably answer to the current gun spree problems in the U.S. is as insoluble as the problem of some people running amok with a machete in some tropical countries.  There the solution is to kill the amok person as soon as possible.

 

Under some of the intolerable stresses that can pile up on people, some just crack.  The earliest possible death of such persons protects the rest of us.  Running amok with a machete or a gun is the same.  The coping mechanism has to be the same, too.

 

To prevent such occurrences would be ideal, but to detect such people before the fact is very, very difficult.  You'd need a real Big Brother state.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Saying that seems like such a large gamble....

 

The only countries that have large enough militaries to pose a significant obstacle to the US military in case of a war would be China and maybe Russia (although I doubt it about Russia), and that is a nuclear power. That means that any conflict with China is either going to be limited in scope in order to prevent escalation and subsequently nuclear war, or one of the sides is suicidal and goes all out and as a result starts a nuclear war. I generally have enough faith in the governments of both the US and China to believe neither of them are suicidal or would pursue suicidal policies. 

 

Besides, a country like China is far more interested in other ways of warfare. Economic and cyber warfare are the ways of the future. Rifleman and tanks are getting outdated. And if you really need to blow things up, guided missiles and drones are good enough. 

[AcmeSigns 97]

Under some of the intolerable stresses that can pile up on people, some just crack. 

I read an interesting article about just this sort of thing by Dr. Keith Ablow (which, of course, I now cannot find). His contention is that there really isn't any such thing as 'just cracking'. In the case of the Washington Navy Yard shooter...he disassembled his shotgun to sneak it into the building. That, to me, just screams of forethought.

 

edit: Found it, although it isn't quite as I remembered it (maybe it was another piece by the Doctor?) but the gist is the same...all the warning signs were in place to have to prevented this tragedy. These people don't 'crack'...they 'plan'.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/17/aaron-alexis-another-improperly-treated-mentally-ill-man-becomes-mass-killer/

[Metalpuritan 160]

 

Saying that seems like such a large gamble....

 

The only countries that have large enough militaries to pose a significant obstacle to the US military in case of a war would be China and maybe Russia (although I doubt it about Russia), and that is a nuclear power. That means that any conflict with China is either going to be limited in scope in order to prevent escalation and subsequently nuclear war, or one of the sides is suicidal and goes all out and as a result starts a nuclear war. I generally have enough faith in the governments of both the US and China to believe neither of them are suicidal or would pursue suicidal policies. 

 

Besides, a country like China is far more interested in other ways of warfare. Economic and cyber warfare are the ways of the future. Rifleman and tanks are getting outdated. And if you really need to blow things up, guided missiles and drones are good enough. 

 

One of these days, our enemies, and we have a lot of enemies, will get a clue and they will unite.  It is inevitable really, history shows that.  It is not a matter of "if" but of "when".

 

Even if the "new world order"(a term I do not approve of) was a good thing and most countries bought into it with all their heart(and money), there will always be people who resist it, even if it is in fact good for them.  A little thing called "human nature" will ensure that there is always resistance.  Take me for example, I question everything, even the good things, someone being nice, I question the motive behind them acting nice, someone gives me a gift, I wonder why.  In ALL things there is good AND bad.  What is good for some will always be bad for others, somebody will always be left out, and that is just simple facts of life right there.  There is no utopia except in our minds.  We all wish for true peace but we will never achieve it, it is a pipe dream.

 

Freedom, happiness and love cannot be obtained, not ever not by anybody and there is no exception to that.  The minute you think you have achieved any of those, you have to find a new thing to keep it up.  You achieve freedom, and eventually someone tries to take it away, so you have to fight for it all over again.  You think your new phone made you happy, but wait, a new phone came out and now need that phone to make you happy, and repeat.  You think you have found love, but if you do nothing with it it will certainly fade.  This is why utopia will never be achieved, all the effort in the world is just simply, not enough, they are things need to be constantly chased after, it is in that chase that those feelings can be achieved though.

 

If there was never any death or tragedy, we wouldn't even know what freedom, happiness or love was when we saw it.

 

That is just how things are.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^^ Crafty, those.  However in whatever paranoid or schizoid state they are in they might have been detected.  The Navy Yard shooter heard 'voices' but went untreated.

 

^ Now it depends on what you mean by enemies.  Do you mean people that actively hate Americans and have made it a national thing, or others who have a rather different view that might be called dislike?

 

Sleeping next door to an elephant is not exactly bound to produce unlimited adoration, especially when we have a bear on one of the other borders.  Because of the media spin we get from all sides, including our own, it is often difficult to admire some of the things that happen in 'America'.  Our people tend to be highly skeptical in general.

[Cobraroll 138]

If anybody (a country, that is) would ever "attack" America in this day and age, it would probably be done with diplomatics, not with weapons. What would they possibly gain from attacking the American mainland, where you have to supply your forces across an ocean, then fight an armed population bursting with patriotism? It would be more practical to get a large body of nations to condemn whatever the US has done to deserve condemnment, then have their allies evicting American military bases, diplomats and ultimately corporations from their countries, moves that would either force the US to cooperate or drive the country into isolationism. You wouldn't defeat the US by attacking it with weapons, that would just unite them. You'd have to break their ties to the rest of the world, and possibly see if you can manage to make some internal unrest between US the government and the people. Given the cultural divide between north and south, or for that matter Republicans and Democrats, and all the guns lying around everywhere, things could get messy if you convinced some group of people that the other group represents a sufficient threat to America.

 

However, it's more likely that the US would get to live in peace for the remainder of its time. The Internet allows for more and more cross-border relations to form. More and more people speak English these days, and the population of various countries can directly engage in talks with each other, possibly arrange marches for peace in their respective capitals. News travel across the globe in seconds, cooperations are more and more dependent on goodwill between countries, and wars between developed nations would destroy all that they have built up. It's easier and easier to make people understand that. I think we'll be achieving a global society in due time, with a larger and larger group of countries will effectively merge, form alliances and unions, cooperate in various projects, gradually erasing borders. You get to a point where war is plain stupid, you won't achieve anything good with it, while also destroying what you already have.

 

Meanwhile, American ties to the rest of the world keep strengthening, as do the ties between various other countries. The "global club" keeps growing, and there are no non-members strong enough to challenge the big players (US, EU, possibly China) without ruining its relations to a whole host of other countries in the process. There would still be unrest in some parts of the world, but the "big boys" have grown up and realized that fighting each other is kind of stupid.

[LexusInfernus 908]

One of these days, our enemies, and we have a lot of enemies, will get a clue and they will unite.  It is inevitable really, history shows that.  It is not a matter of "if" but of "when".

 

 

 

Even if the "new world order"(a term I do not approve of) was a good thing and most countries bought into it with all their heart(and money), there will always be people who resist it, even if it is in fact good for them.  A little thing called "human nature" will ensure that there is always resistance.  Take me for example, I question everything, even the good things, someone being nice, I question the motive behind them acting nice, someone gives me a gift, I wonder why.  In ALL things there is good AND bad.  What is good for some will always be bad for others, somebody will always be left out, and that is just simple facts of life right there.  There is no utopia except in our minds.  We all wish for true peace but we will never achieve it, it is a pipe dream.

 

Freedom, happiness and love cannot be obtained, not ever not by anybody and there is no exception to that.  The minute you think you have achieved any of those, you have to find a new thing to keep it up.  You achieve freedom, and eventually someone tries to take it away, so you have to fight for it all over again.  You think your new phone made you happy, but wait, a new phone came out and now need that phone to make you happy, and repeat.  You think you have found love, but if you do nothing with it it will certainly fade.  This is why utopia will never be achieved, all the effort in the world is just simply, not enough, they are things need to be constantly chased after, it is in that chase that those feelings can be achieved though.

 

If there was never any death or tragedy, we wouldn't even know what freedom, happiness or love was when we saw it.

 

That is just how things are.

 

Sure, but that doesn't mean it will create a situation where a total war is the outcome. Yes, the US has enemies and yes they will unite at some point. But that also implies they are smart enough to understand that waging a total war against the US is a bad idea. Its where the US has the biggest advantage, its what the entire US military doctrine is based on. Waging a total war against the US would be to play the game on the terms of the US. If and when they are going to attack you, they will do it on their terms and you can therefor be sure that it will not be a tradition war. 

 

9/11 is proof of this. The first attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. And what kind of attack was it? A declaration of war by some other country? A military invasion? No, it are a bunch of passenger planes hijacked by extremists, flown straight into critical infrastructure. And was it an attack that a total war society could have prevented? Not a chance.

 

And the subsequent wars again showed how backward the whole US military doctrine really is. And why is that? Because the US military doctrine is based on waging war against states who fight by the Clausewitzian rules of warfare. And what did a bunch of Afghan goat herders do? They completely ignored the rule book and fought the Afghan war on their own terms. Which is why, after more than a decade of NATO occupation in Afghanistan, the Taliban is still alive and kicking. 

 

 

So what will your enemies do? Well, they likely have no interest in invading the United States itself. Instead they will seek to diminish the influence the US has abroad. Like what has happened in Syria right now. More of that is what rivals of the US will seek to do. 

[AkemiAzula 280]

I highly doubt WWIII will ever happen. War isn't cool any more. These days what with the net and such cybercrime is the new thing, and individual actions far outweigh organised action by nations or large societies. War in the future is likely to return to a tribal nature, as there won't be enough nationalistic fervour to battle like in the good old days of Napoleon and Wellington. And the whole concept of violence, whether virtually or physically inflicted, is likely to wane in appeal. If you want violence watch a film, play a video game etc. Reality has lost its touch.

 

I think banning guns will never happen, and if it did the motion would be repealed shortly after. What will happen is guns will eventually become as dated as the flintlocks of the good old days of the amendment.

[Duke87 1,070]

There are people you know and love and I am willing to bet my life on you not wanting to lose them at and at any cost.  Everyone has something to lose, even if that something is not an item of some sort, a trinket.  You, yourself, you live in New York, at least your profile says so, and if that is the case, you have your freedom.  I posit one hypothetical to your own hypothetical, if you were to be kidnapped by someone and held against your will, but you were in a room with your captor and your captor was the only thing standing between you and your freedom and he won't let you leave without killing him, do you just crawl into the corner and die?  No, you will fight, you may die in the process, but you will fight.  It is just hypothetical of course.

 

You are posing a very different sort of scenario from what I am talking about. That is fighting for myself - which is something anyone would do, naturally. What I will not do is be a martyr for a general cause that is not mine personally. I will not, for example, be taking part in any public demonstrations lest one end with me in handcuffs. Even if the charges are dropped or I am found not guilty, I would likely lose my job simply for being arrested. And then I would for the rest of my life have to explain on job applications why I got fired that time. As a respected professional who prides himself on having a clean record, I am not about to let that change. I will not risk compromising my career for the sake of politics.

 

And the problem with dying for something is that then you're too dead to enjoy the benefit of it. I'd rather be alive and lose something dear to me than be dead. You can learn to live without people and things. You can't learn to live without your life.

[AkemiAzula 280]

While in theory I'd support the concept of dying for a cause, my rational instincts would naturally never allow myself to be that heroic man. There may well be instances in theory where a person of a rational nature would be willing to do that... Although off the top of my head I can only think of instances where said rational man is rational in the manner of an extremist, that is has another standard of logic which allows different things. What is rational to an extremist may be irrational to us. 

 

I don't think there is much worth fighting for in this world aside from our own careers as Duke87 said. All our ideological debates are done by words not by swords these days, and there is so little agreement on them that really you would have to think everyone else was incredibly ill informed to act in such a manner over an ideological issue. And dying for queen and country isn't terribly fashionable these days either. However if you are fighting for a job or a place to live, you may well fight to the bitter end.

[AcmeSigns 97]

And the problem with dying for something is that then you're too dead to enjoy the benefit of it. I'd rather be alive and lose something dear to me than be dead.

 

 

Would that also include freedom? I, for one, wouldn't want to live without freedom.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Would that also include freedom? I, for one, wouldn't want to live without freedom.

 

What freedom exactly? 

 

What is freedom to begin with? 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

To paraphrase General Patton: "Don't die for your country, let the other guy do that."

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It is clear that there is a small cadre of American citizens that shouldn't be allowed out without a leash.  So what to do about it?