Since Australia introduced strict gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, which killed 35, do you know how many mass shootings there have been between then and now? None. Funny that.
I think the second amendment is great in principle but obviously causes more issues than necessary in the 21st century.
I love it when you hear Americans say "You can't change the second amendment!" Then why the **** is it called an AMENDMENT? Do you know what that word means?
When America was first founded it was built on a radical and inalienable respect for property rights. The rights to own personal property and private property were paramount to a new society in a world where feudalism was still in place; that's why many emigrated to the States. Obviously, a society which places respect for property rights first and foremost causes issues like whether slavery should be allowed, as slaves were technically the property of someone else and to end slavery would infringe on the slave-owner's property rights. I've always believed that absolute freedom and absolute equality are mutually exclusive. The two cannot exist together. With absolute freedom an individual has the freedom to exploit others for their own benefit whilst absolute equality means nobody is truly free because a higher power is needed to enforce the rules and concepts of equality.
Native Americans didn't have a concept of property rights. Nobody 'owned' the land. The land belonged, from their perspective, to the spirits they worshipped. A tribe may have lived on the land but they never owned it. From a European colonial perspective, they didn't steal the land from the Natives, they simply occupied and took ownership of land which belonged to nobody.
It was, at first, actually. When the Europeans first arrived in North America the Native Americans welcomed them and formed treaties allowing them to establish settlements. Still, the Natives Americans never understood the concept of private property and at first, viewed the European settlers as another travelling 'tribe'. It was only after the Europeans broke the treaties with the Natives and moved further inland, butchering the Natives and acquiring their tribal territories as private property when peace was broken. I know you like to think you're an expert on every subject known to man but when you know very little and you resort to being facetious, you look like a right knob.
The first Europeans didn't 'settle' as such. They mainly died of disease. By the time the Pilgrims landed to settle, they were met by natives, some of whom could speak English, having already been here after been taken as slaves by earlier visitors. Save the abuse, it's bollocks, and ineffective. It simply shows your limitations.
Quite right. It was Shangri la. No death or disease, just one big love in. Hell, the Natives had learned how to ask the pilgrims for a beer (in English) from the spirit guides, nothing to do with ending up in London via slave routes. I guess he wouldn't have minded the slave bit, after all, they'd only been killing time waiting to be 'founded'.
This is a deep and interesting post. I would truly like to know whether these are your own, genuine observations, or are they maybe a summary of what you've been taught at uni? Either way, you've piqued my interest.
True. But if a nutter of any persuasion wants to get a weapon and cause carnage, they can. Like that nutter in Norway did. A country where weapons of any type are not freely available. There was a mass shooting in China recently, another country where weapons aren't freely available with a far stricter government than any in Europe or the USA. We are fortunate that being an island it isn't as easy to smuggle guns as it is in Europe where AK47s are freely available for relatively small amounts.
The exceptions that prove the rule. Though I don't understand the Norway comment, how are guns not freely available, they have one of the highest levels of gun ownership in the world?
I didn't know that american congress blocked the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from conducting research on gun violence on the grounds that, "The CDC is there to look at diseases that need to be dealt with to protect public health,” ... “I’m sorry, but a gun is not a disease. Guns don’t kill people — people do. And when people use weapons in a horrible way, we should condemn the actions of the individual and not blame the action on some weapon.” http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence
No. It shows anyone wishing to do harm can get holdof an assault rifle if they wish. As for Norway, we are talking about handguns being owned by the public in possession figures not assault rifles. Norway has a handgun for just over 31% of the population. The USA has most, followed by Serbia with 75%. Switzerland has 45.7%, plus everyone who has done their national service takes their rifle, along with military grade ammunition. Apparently this makes Switzerland the country with the highest proportion of houses with a firearm (and might help explain low burglary rates). As for Norway having one of the highest levels of gun ownership in the world, then so must have Sweden, France,Austria, Germany and Iceland who all have a gun ownership rate within less than 1 percent either way of Norway. However, as I wrote previously gun ownership isn't the problem. It is assault rifles.And though they are more freely available in the USA they are readily available to those who wish to cause harm as events in Paris, Norway and other places has shown. What the answer is I, like everyone else, don't know.
