Ok, now show me an example post 1950's, in the age of the Internet, and in a country that had a stable democratic government for hundreds of years. Again, you're comparing a very different era (1950s at the latest) to today, and not a single country you mentioned was a real democracy before those acts passed. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Im not going to do a KIMaster line-item response, so Ill just do one. You make some good points, and I really wish what you say was true. But if society were as forward thinking as you say it is, we wouldnt need law enforcement in the first place. I dont think giving people the right to defend themselves or their family is anathema to social progress. And im not sure how progressive other nations, and were both talking about Europe here, really are when their currency is teetering on the edge of collapse and/or rapid inflation. Francis Fukuyama was right when he said democracy was the last form of government. Going towards a quasi-socialist democracy is a step backwards because it goes against the grain of human nature. And surrendering all power, no matter how futile the alternative might be, is a bad course to be on. People are inherently shitty when restrictions are removed, guns are a good equalizer.
Why qualify any of it? Those poor people were flesh and blood, no different than you or I. Does the means by which they were governed in any way diminish the value of their lives? Clearly it did in the eyes of those governing them but I'm sure if we could ask the millions upon millions of those who perished under that rule they would feel different. By the way, the killing fields of Cambodia was in the latter half of the 1970's. EDIT: As I recall Yugoslavia had gun control as well. I am trying to find a reference to confirm this as well.
Here is the problem. Every example you cited is no where close to what the United States is NOW. You posted those as examples refuting my point that a massive Government takeover and removing democracy CAN'T happen today, and they made no sense. My point was that, in this day and age, in a modern, first world (and I made it a point to say first world) country, it is virtually impossible for any one individual, or any group of individuals, to amass enough power (both politically and militarily, because it would require massive amounts of both) to simply "call off" democracy and declare themselves king or emperor or whatever. You're citing examples from countries that had never experienced democracy or the kind of freedoms we enjoy. You're citing examples from countries (Germany) that were completely devastated after losing a major war. Yes, their deaths were tragic, but at the same time, you completely missed my point. Once again, in THIS day and age, in THIS place and time, it is virtually impossible for the kind of "tyranny" you're afraid of to happen. You're clinging to the possibility that any individual or group could amass the kind of power needed to take over the country, and it is simply NOT possible. The problem here is that I'm talking about social issues, and you're comparing them to fiscal issues. It actually happens that fiscally, I am very moderate (I was okay with the tax increase, but I really want to see a lot of spending cuts to go with it). When it comes to politics, there are two axis (X and Y, if you will). Economics and Social issues. We've been discussing social issues, and SOCIALLY it is important that we adapt and change with the times, because SOCIETY is progressive. Society changes, and Government must adapt to those changes, and that was one of the major points of the constitution. It was supposed to be malleable and adaptable. That is why clinging to it so fervently and saying that it is above reproach or unchangeable is simply wrong. The founders WANTED a document that could change with the times. That was the point of making it amendable. Second of all, you're equating giving up (some) guns with "surrendering all power." Once again, I have to emphasize that no one has talked about repealing the 2nd amendment, and taking away "all" the guns; only limiting what KINDS of guns and gun accessories are available, and background checks on all gun purchases. Second, there are other forms of power besides guns. Guns are physically powerful, but how useful is a gun to someone who doesn't know how to fire it? How useful is your armory of weapons when it is JUST YOU against an army? Guns do not always equal power. There are other forms of power that they're NOT taking away. They're not taking away your vote. They're not taking away your ability to protest or gather, they're not taking away your freedom of speech or your ability to gather information and or the freedom of the press. The pen is mightier than the sword, remember? I think the reality of this situation is that gun owners are afraid of "tyranny," but what they're doing is confusing "Tyranny" with "being in the minority in a democracy." In theory, our Government is a democracy where the majority has the power while preserving minority rights. Of course, in practice, that doesn't happen (see: Slavery, segregation, marriage equality), and the people in the minority feel that the Government is being tyrannical, even though they're just following the demands of the majority (whether those demands are right or wrong is, obviously, open for debate, which is what we're doing). Democrats do it when they're in the minority, too (see: GW Bush's entire presidency).
Im not a right wing ideologue, I have a lt of liberal beliefs in the progress of society (gay marriage, pot legalization, etc), but on that X-Y axis, the lines are going to cross, there are tenants of social progress that drive the fiscal standing (welfare, immigration control, etc.). The blame lies on both the right and the left in this country in that both sides refuse to capitulate their ideals. Right wingers want social issues to remain stagnant, no matter how archaic, left wingers believe that society has the obligation to help the downtrodden no matter the circumstances or practical impact. As far as guns are concerned, I dont think anyone on this board said they dont think there is room for improvement with gun laws nor did anyone say we should outlaw private ownership, but it needs to be done in a constructive manner, and not some knee-jerk legislation that the executive branch crams down everyone's throat because people are emotional about a tragedy.
Here's where the breakdown is: In your opinion (it seems), society always progresses forward and once in an advanced state, won't regress. Despite what we know from history. In this modern era, we haven't seen it, yet. To say it can't or won't happen or to even foresake freedoms granted to you from a past era because you don't think you may need them is foolhardy in my opinion. You cannot predict what the future will hold. Here's a question for you. Suppose you give up a freedom, down the road you determine you need it back. How do you get it back if your government won't give it to you?
Right, and I agree for the most part, but the problem is that any conversation about gun control, no matter how small scale the laws proposed are, is immediately shot down from the right as being "tyranny" by the government. We're told that "now is not the time to discuss it," so when IS the time? Do we wait six months? Because by then, some new issues will have arisen, and gun control falls to the wayside (no doubt what many of the gun control opponents want by delaying action). If something isn't done NOW, when it is fresh in the minds of politicians and the nation, then nothing will ever get done, and then another massacre happens, and suddenly "now isn't the time to talk about guns" again, and the cycle continues. The other reality is that the "knee jerk" stuff isn't going to pass congress. Obama can't make new laws himself, even by executive order. He, more likely than not, will create an executive order demanding that current laws are enforced much more strictly, and that would have to come with new laws from congress. As for Oden, the more you post, the more I think you've got a bunker set up filled with guns and you're preparing for some kind of apocalypse or a massive Government takeover of all your liberties. You're one of those people who thinks the UN is trying to create some one-world Government to take away everything you've ever owned or worked for. You're right. My opinion is that the kind of regression you're talking about simply CAN'T and WON'T happen, short of a nuclear war (in which case we're all fucked, anyway). You say I can't predict the future, but I say I can predict that the chances of us regressing to some kind of 1700s style "tyranny of a king" style world is simply NOT going to happen. Democracy has won. It is in every first world country. Even those "socialist" European nations are democratic, they're just not the kind of democracy you agree with. Once you give people those kind of freedoms, taking them back away would require the kind of power (politically and militarily) that simply cannot be amassed in today's society. The other thing, Oden, that I have to emphasize again (because you've ignored it time and time again) is that NO SINGLE POLITICIAN has said they're going to repeal the 2nd amendment. Not the President, not one single senator (Democratic or Republican), and not one single congressman (democratic or republican). They're NOT taking away your freedom to own a gun, or even DISCUSSING taking away all your guns, so stop talking like that is what is on the table. It isn't. IWantSomeJuice may disagree (and may have exchanged some snide red dots), but at least we're discussing this rationally and maturely at this point. You're completely ignoring what is actually happening for some fantasy scenario you've concocted in your head. They're talking about taking away your ability to buy CERTAIN guns or gun accessories, or making background checks mandatory, not ALL guns. Edit to address your question: I don't have to worry about that scenario, because I am concerned with what is REALLY happening, not some potential dystopian future that will never exist outside my own head. What is really happening is they want to limit the use of certain kinds of guns and gun accessories. They're not taking away my freedom to own a gun, they're discussing what are reasonable limits to said freedom, which is something they've done in the past and will continue to do in the future. It is why you can't legally own a rocket launcher or a tank, or legally own a fully automatic weapon. So, Oden, it seems we'll have to agree to disagree. You can continue to build your bunker and train your militia for the day the revolution (never) comes, and I'll continue to live my life without being in constant fear of something that isn't ever going to happen.
I don't recall ever stating that I believed gun confiscation or repealing of the 2nd amendment was in the works. I originally took issue with overreach of executive power. You can read it, it's there. I went on to respond to those that believe the 2nd amendment is a relic from the past that people need to give up on it because nothing bad will ever happen. The only issue I really have with any of the discussion surrounding firearms laws is when people start discussing the topic of registration. Here's where I stand: Nobody knows how to live my life better than I do. I have no idea how you live or how to run your life. I think we should all live and let live. That being said; when an individual, a politician or a governing body comes along and wants to change my life for me, I do my best to (figuratively) stand on their necks as others should to persuade them not to. If this makes me a bunker-mentality militia member in your book then so be it. My only issue with people who believe the things that you do is that you take a very short view of history and live your lives believing nothing bad could ever happen. People who use words like "can't" and "won't" when discussing the future forget that 'never' is a very long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_&v=blXkl9YVoHo Do you think she's changed her mind since then?
Is that the bill she just proposed? A complete gun ban? And is there honestly even close to enough support to repeal the 2nd amendment? Is repealing it even honestly even a remote possibility? No, no, no, and no.
Nope. It's the bill closest to her agenda that she thinks she can garner enough votes for. As she has stated, if she could get enough votes, she would take all the guns. So she is content with clawing away part of the 2nd Amendment because she believes people will let her.
"Nine meals from anarchy." That's a saying in the survivalism circles. Broadly, it means that otherwise civilized people will, in a period of deprivation and stress, are much more likely to lose some of their civility. Many of those who don't understand the relevance of the Second Amendment in contemporary society assume that the status quo is perpetual and irreversible. In many ways, it is. The democratic peace theory is very real, not just in the context of international relations but also domestic security. For all the supposed discord in our government, perpetuated by two-party politics and commericalized media, the truth is that Americans (and the rest of the first world) are very well off. Nearly everyone has easy access to food, shelter, and employment; most have a reasonable amount of free time and entertainment options are abundant. It's easy to be content. Thing is, we rely on a lot of complex systems to enjoy our standards of living. Our food is produced by industrialized agriculture and brought to us by just-in-time inventory processes. Our shelter is sustained by mortgages and leases and built in areas that require copious amounts of infrastructure. Our employment is largely decided on the complicated interactions of various economies around the world. And everything is tied together by currency that has no backing other than the good faith of the government. I'm not saying these systems don't work, or aren't wise. They have, and they (mostly) are. But we've seen what happens when there are hiccups: Hurricane Katrina, the housing bubble, the so-called Great Recession. People are kicked out of their homes, utilities lose service, or jobs get hard to find, and before long there are looters here and protesters occupying there. One could argue that the problems weren't so bad, and correctly, as they were mostly regional issues that affected a relatively small percentage of people. But what happens in the case of, say, climate change in the Midwest that disrupts food production? Or unemployment at Great Depression levels? What if we have a flu pandemic that's not just a media construction? What if the East Coast gets hit by a high-category hurricane? What are people going to do if their grocery store runs out of food, or if they can't find a place to live and work? More importantly, what is the government going to do? We haven't elected leaders for some time. We've elected people who are classically conditioned, in the Pavlovian sense, to give their constituency what they want and to say what they want to hear. And the problem with that is that lies are free, but necessities aren't. So one has to wonder how the government plans to react when they realize they've written checks they can't cash (figuratively and literally). The point I'm trying to make is that, even though we're in probably the most stable period in the history of mankind, nobody really knows what's going to happen once the shit hits the fan. That said, I realize that all this makes me sound like a Ruby Ridge nutjob. So I bolded the next sentence so everyone who decides this is TL;DR sees this one disclaimer. This is all highly unlikely and neither I nor my progeny are probably ever going to face the prospect of the collapse of civilization. There. Back to the issue at hand. There are two misconceptions about the average Constitution-worshipping, prepping, survivalist gun nut. One is that they're just waiting for the Redcoats to march through town, and the second is that they're constantly afraid of the Redcoats marching through town. The way I see it, it's an issue of risk management. There are three components of risk: probability, impact, and mitigation. Some risks are high probability, and low impact, like the risk of stubbing your toe when you walk across your house in the dark. Others are low probability and low impact, such as a meteorite striking your toe. Not many people mitigate these risks, whether the cost of mitigation is low (turning on the lights) or high (meteor-proof shoes). The sticky wicket is low-probability, high-impact risks. I have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers in my house, even though my house will probably never catch on fire and replacing the batteries in smoke alarms are a pain in the ass. However, I'd rather not die in a fire (I would consider that high-impact) so I accept the mitigation costs. So what about guns? I'll die a happy man if mine are never so much as loaded anywhere but the shooting range. And they can be a pain in the ass to maintain. But I'd rather not find myself in the position of needing to do so, and not having a gun, whether a malicious intruder is in my house (low probability) or the local rape squads are on a pillaging run (even lower probability). But, and this is important, I'm also not constantly in fear of low-probability risks. I'm not afraid my house is going to erupt into flames, or home invaders are going to strike tonight, or I'm going to have to fight for my survival when the shit hits the fan. I'm just prepared, because even though these things are probably never going to happen, I want to be able to mitigate them if they do, whether the cost is low (smoke alarm batteries) or high (gun ownership). So you might argue that the Second Amendment is irrelevant in modern society, and in the sense that it will likely never prove itself useful, you are correct. But you can't assume that the conditions of living we enjoy today are always going to be present. And I think it's more than a little naïve to assume that cooler heads will always prevail, especially those in a position of authority. So regardless of whether someone comes after me with a sawed-off shotgun or a main battle tank, I'd like to have the ability to defend myself. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Wait, so because society isn't perfect, it hasn't been nearly continually moving in a progressive dimension? That makes no sense. Imperfection doesn't imply a lack of progress. We have less violent crime today than ever before. So we actually DO need less law enforcement than ever before. The reason that we demand more and better law enforcement is because this is the natural state of human progress: in the face of material and legal comfort, we demand higher standards. While I think the Maslow hierarchy of needs is in some ways flawed, it does by and large get this idea right. Once you have enough food to survive, you start demanding better food. Once you have a relatively safe society, you demand a safer society. If you believe this is the lesson of history, please state in which prior era being an average citizen was better than it is today. He believes this BECAUSE of history.
I'm not talking about just quality of life. I am talking about the society (bold above is my emphasis), it's laws, of which a person is a part of/subject to. I wasn't and wouldn't argue quality of life. The quality of the society and it's laws a person is a part of is a different story. Do you need examples of societies which have regressed and in some cases disappeared?
If you have a narrow view of what a society is, then perhaps you are correct. I suppose the Romans disappeared and such. However, when "society" is viewed as the average citizen of the world, we still see a trend of near-monotonic improvement. The general state of affairs for the average person throughout history was a pretty mean one. You and I live in a society where people can't own other people. Where you can't kill someone for looking at you funny. Where someone can't take your property because they are larger than you. Where you can't avoid prosecution because your victim was a shade darker than you. Where women are not chattel property. Where you aren't denied rights because of where you do or do not worship. Where you aren't executed or imprisoned for sedition. None of those things are the norm throughout human history. So, on the whole, I'm pretty pleased with the long-term trend of our laws.
So your suggestion here is that MF Global managed to take funds from JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank, who compromise over 95% of the losses, because it was larger and more powerful than JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank? That makes sense.
I have to call bullshit. I'm living in a city which used a massacre as a catalyst to begin a democratic movement to remove a dictator. In May 1980. It's not 2013, but that's modern enough to disprove your point: <a class="postlink" href="http://asianhistory.about.com/od/southkorea/p/The-Gwangju-Massacre-1980.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://asianhistory.about.com/od/southk ... e-1980.htm</a> <a class="postlink" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Democratization_Movement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_D ... n_Movement</a> "During this period, citizens rose up against Chun Doo-hwan's dictatorship and took control of the city. In the course of the uprising, citizens took up arms (by robbing police stations and military depots) to oppose the government, but were ultimately crushed by the South Korean army." This is Korea, a country which has generally had it's shit together in the modern era: hosting World Cups, F1's and Olympics (this in 1988), having the UN Secretary General position, and home to some of the biggest companies in the world. Also, in the realm of the hypothetical, the idea of removing the 2nd amendment would pose a threat to international security. There was a quote by a Japanese general that said something to the effect of "there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass" when asked about invading the US. We are so well-armed and trained as a civilian population, the very idea sounds ridiculous. Even the concept of invasion prompts a ludicrous response: look at the Minutemen "guarding" the Mexican border.