Why does America (the people) hate America (the country)?

[samuelzz10]

Who are 'they'? I'm one person, not representing a group of people or any mass of land, and I don't go around prancing through the streets of Europe claiming everything here smells of roses if that's what you're thinking.

Every foreign person I know. I'm actually British, my parents are south African, and I still think america is a better place than fuckin' france. Place is full of pussies. (Kind of hypocritical, but you know it's true.) seriously, the place has its problems but considering when they say "deaths in america" they are talking about a place nearly the size of europe, and then they compare the UK's numbers and a 50 state democracies numbers and they expect america to match up with the UK's numbers. It doesn't work like that.

Truth be told, no place is good on earth.

That's deep man.

Well, it's true.

[Silverdream]

Who are 'they'? I'm one person, not representing a group of people or any mass of land, and I don't go around prancing through the streets of Europe claiming everything here smells of roses if that's what you're thinking.

Every foreign person I know. I'm actually British, my parents are south African, and I still think america is a better place than fuckin' france. Place is full of pussies. (Kind of hypocritical, but you know it's true.) seriously, the place has its problems but considering when they say "deaths in america" they are talking about a place nearly the size of europe, and then they compare the UK's numbers and a 50 state democracies numbers and they expect america to match up with the UK's numbers. It doesn't work like that.

Truth be told, no place is good on earth.

That's deep man.

Well, it's true.

The USA is bigger than Europe. France is a country of badasses and the only cultural problem I can think of in France is the widespread perversion and sexual harassment. Jean Lafitte and his pirate army as well as the French Navy helped give the USA freedom. When Piltogg Germany was on the rise, Winston Churchill unironically thanked god for having the French army. The routing of the French army is still somewhat of a Piltogg miracle. The rest of your post makes almost no sense.

[samuelzz10]

If there was a country of 5 people, and one of 500 people, and you said the one with 500 was more violent, that's fucking obvious

[Silverdream]

Do you understand the meaning of per capita, motherfucker?!



These are the world's homicide rates. The darker the country is the more violent (per capita) it is. Now I may be colour blind, but I can still see that the USA is darker than most European countries. While I agree with you that Europe isn't a utopia (the neo-nazi movements and rascism are more prevalent than in North America), you are less likely to get murdered there.

[samuelzz10]

Do you understand the meaning of per capita, motherfucker?!



These are the world's homicide rates. The darker the country is the more violent (per capita) it is. Now I may be colour blind, but I can still see that the USA is darker than most European countries. While I agree with you that Europe isn't a utopia (the neo-nazi movements and rascism are more prevalent than in North America), you are less likely to get murdered there.

Very well

[Zahru II]

Whoa man, the North Pole looks like a shit place to hang out

[stubby]

You said everyone was not part of The Militia- All american citizens, by virtue of being american citizens, are part of The Militia (although they may or may not be part of a militia)

Regardless of which definition of "well-regulated militia" you're using, there are very few American citizens who can pretend they're a part of one. Why do you think the Founders made sure to mention a well-regulated militia at all, if they just meant everybody?

I am willing to deny firearms rights to felons and the mentally ill if you still feel uneasy, providing there is some method for felons and the mentally ill to clear their names, perhaps after a two decades of good behavior or after a board of psychiatrists deems a man sane enough to be trusted with a firearm and any other rights that they may otherwise be denied. It would be horrible to create second-class citizens, and we should avoid that as much as possible.

Yeah, tell that to the War on Drugs. The guys who cooked up this modern version of the "right to bear arms" debacle are the same ones who set up the Southern Strategy.

[Nitewatchman]

This thread is getting a little out of hand, but I'd just like to respond to the ludicrous notion that the Belgian documentary introduced where guns limit freedom of speech.

If anything, what that man said was a GOOD thing, because it could potentially force us to come at arguments and disagreements from a reasonable perspective rather than allowing them to escalate to violence and be filled with high emotion. However, that's still just a behavioral modification tactic.

That being said, I'm not advocating the idea that everyone should have a gun; I'm advocating the idea that everyone should have the right to have a gun, or really, further, I'm saying that either way it doesn't make much difference. The argument that everyone having access to them puts us all in this society of constant danger and instability is nonsense, as is the idea that giving us guns will make everything better. These ideas are based on the deeper idea that taking away or giving us guns is magically going to change who we are as a people. It is incredibly presumptuous, and is based on the logic that people only do things because they can, not because of who they are, or what is inside of them. That exogesic idea is nonsense. "Well maybe that will enable us to begin to change!" Sure, if behavioral modification is actually a way to change who people really are, and not how they act and react in a certain environment. :-/ The whole gun control thing needs to be approached, but the current approach is not the right one. It is one derived from the percieved need for immediate change and the belief that such spontaneous change can actually happen, and that is foolish and dangerous. We aren't looking at things in a long-term sense, nor are we examining the value of our actions(Though we often say we are); we're just zealously attempting to justify what we're doing rather than objectively examining it.

Edit:

Do you understand the meaning of per capita, motherfucker?!



These are the world's homicide rates. The darker the country is the more violent (per capita) it is. Now I may be colour blind, but I can still see that the USA is darker than most European countries. While I agree with you that Europe isn't a utopia (the neo-nazi movements and rascism are more prevalent than in North America), you are less likely to get murdered there.

What the hell, Greenland!? Is that place still full of vikings or what!?

[Zahru II]

What the hell, Greenland!? Is that place still full of vikings or what!?

The secret is out

[Tzan]

Yeah, Greenland looks crazy dangerous, yikes.

Probably just low population, little to no police presence, too many guns and people go nuts.

[GeneralOfDeath]

Remember that a well-regulated militia would be made up of individual landowners, each bringing their own equipment (see: gun) to the unit. So, in the end the second ammendment defends personal ownership for the purpose keeping civilian militias feasable.

No, it means that a certain amount of people who form a militia can have guns. It doesn't mean everyone and their dog can have one, because not everyone is part of the militia.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The 2nd ammendment is the only one to state a purpose for it's existance, which is where your confusion is coming from. A militia, such as existed in the 18th century, consisted of everyone and their dog who wanted to join bringing their own privately owned weapons. Think about this logically. When the 2nd was penned, a weapon was considered a nesecarry tool of survival in most of America, allowing one to hunt and to defend against thieves/indians. The 2nd states that the government will not interfere with the right of Americans to own weapons because they want militias to exist, but everybody else in America is blanketed by that statement as well.

[Tzan]

We don't need a militia anymore.

[Zupponn]

It's not an experiment we'd be able to do, but give one psycho an assault rifle and another a knife, and send them into a school. Who would get the most kills? Which school would you rather be in? Which guy would you have the best chance of disarming, or running from? I think the choice is easily made. Guns, no matter what other views you have on them, are certainly the easiest way of killing large amounts of people.

If a person is going to do this in a world where guns are "outlawed", he'd find a way to get a gun anyways.

[Silverdream]

It's not an experiment we'd be able to do, but give one psycho an assault rifle and another a knife, and send them into a school. Who would get the most kills? Which school would you rather be in? Which guy would you have the best chance of disarming, or running from? I think the choice is easily made. Guns, no matter what other views you have on them, are certainly the easiest way of killing large amounts of people.

If a person is going to do this in a world where guns are "outlawed", he'd find a way to get a gun anyways.

Hell, in Chechnya the rebels made guns like these:







Point is anyone with some ingenuity can make a gun or worse.



Narco Tank.



Killdozer.

[Zupponn]

Exactly. The people who want guns are going to have them no matter what happens, so what's the point?