Support for Gun Control in US at its Lowest Level in More than 50 Years

[Centurion1]

It's really not that hard to get a gun anywhere. There's a few really bad spots where it is difficult, but for most of the country it's very easy. Oregon's a long-time democrat strong-hold, but you can get a gun and a concealed carry permit here easier than anywhere but Florida, last time I checked.

Go to NY especially the City

[a completely inoffensive name]

Go to NY especially the City

Then order online bro. There are no more gun bans since SCOTUS ruled on Chicago. Nothing is stopping you. Don't act as if waiting two weeks is some big inconvenience.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Then order online bro. There are no more gun bans since SCOTUS ruled on Chicago. Nothing is stopping you. Don't act as if waiting two weeks is some big inconvenience.

The authoritarians in charge in places like NYC and DC are doing their utmost to prevent people from owning guns. In NYC they charge $440 to apply for a permit to own (not carry) a gun, and they reserve the right to disqualify you for any reason they want:

Your application may be disapproved for any of the following reasons:

A history of arrest or conviction, depending upon the severity of the charges and the amount of time that has elapsed since your last arrest or conviction.
Your failure to disclose your full criminal history, including sealed arrests, on your application;
A history of domestic violence incidents;
A history of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI, DWI, DWAI);
Your failure to cooperate with the investigation of your application;
A poor DMV history, including moving violations, failure to appear and answer summonses or failure to pay fines.

This list is not exclusive. If your investigation results in a determination that you lack character and fitness for a license or permit, your application will be denied.

So that's basically a gun ban on people who the cops don't like.

I'll agree that just banning guns in the US is not an answer, but neither is embracing their use every chance you get and cheering teenage mothers for killing a man. It's not unlikely that she will have a lot of mental trouble over it anyway. Better than being dead, yes, but even better if the chance of such an incident is a lot lower in the first place.

And how would a gun ban lower the chance of men armed with knives from breaking into a house?

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

The authoritarians in charge in places like NYC and DC are doing their utmost to prevent people from owning guns. In NYC they charge $440 to apply for a permit to own (not carry) a gun, and they reserve the right to disqualify you for any reason they want:
So that's basically a gun ban on people who the cops don't like.
CR

Just sue and you will win due to the SCOTUS ruling. Government can't deny you a gun on a subjective parameter like "character", that would get absolutely destroyed in court. The government can have set rules of, if X then no, if not X then yes. Anything other than that is up to the discretion of the gun store owner, if it is different, you should have a case.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Just sue and you will win due to the SCOTUS ruling. Government can't deny you a gun on a subjective parameter like "character", that would get absolutely destroyed in court. The government can have set rules of, if X then no, if not X then yes. Anything other than that is up to the discretion of the gun store owner, if it is different, you should have a case.

Suing will takes years to get to SCOTUS, after you find people who have been denied and will make good plaintiffs. And considering SCOTUS just barely said the 2nd protects handgun ownership against a complete ban, I am not sure they'd strike down the character requirement.

And authorities can still pile on defined rules (like the rule that moving violations (traffic tickets) can disqualify you) until no one hasn't broken at least one.

Or they do as DC is and only allow one business to legally even transfer guns in and out, and only allowing people to buy guns after a permit process designed to be long and arduous.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Suing will takes years to get to SCOTUS, after you find people who have been denied and will make good plaintiffs. And considering SCOTUS just barely said the 2nd protects handgun ownership against a complete ban, I am not sure they'd strike down the character requirement.

And authorities can still pile on defined rules (like the rule that moving violations (traffic tickets) can disqualify you) until no one hasn't broken at least one.

Or they do as DC is and only allow one business to legally even transfer guns in and out, and only allowing people to buy guns after a permit process designed to be long and arduous.

CR

I am sure the CATO institute can send their best lawyer to help the plaintiff tear apart the excessive requirement on the basis that it is exactly what you say it is, a work around the SCOTUS ruling, AKA a gun ban under a different system. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck any decent lawyer that has experience in the subject can tear apart what is essentially a de facto gun ban.

The DC situation might be taken care of by suing under anti-trust laws. As for permits...yeah you might be screwed there but that's not a ban, just weeks of waiting.

[Husar]

And how would a gun ban lower the chance of men armed with knives from breaking into a house?

It wouldn't.

A culture that doesn't embrace violence and recklessness as a means to get what you want and a police force doing their job are more likely to prevent that than a gun ban in itself.

Not having a gun ban certainly doesn't reduce the chance of armed intruders either and one case doesn't make a survival chance statistic.

[rvg]

Not having a gun ban certainly doesn't reduce the chance of armed intruders either and one case doesn't make a survival chance statistic.

It does however vastly increase the intruders' chances of ending up dead. From the public safety perspective, this is the optimal solution. Bang.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's all about the culture. Having a very liberal (not in the american sense) policy with guns is perfectly fine if you reinforce the culture to be responsible with incentives, such as subsidized target training and tax breaks for shooting ranges.

Demonizing and alienating people with guns creates the exact opposite effect, with the NRA at times in the past being incredibly absurd in how they behave.

[rvg]

Ted Nugent put it best...

[Husar]

I respect that Europeans have a very different view on the sanctity of criminal life, but my view is that if you're going to break into my house you had better be willing to suffer the consequences.

It's not that different really.

The difference for me is that I rather live in a country where 2 relatively harmless people want to steal my stuff and I don't need a gun to defend myself usually than in a country where 20 armed gunmen/knifemen would like to rob my stuff but I get a chance to shoot back. Neither guns nor self defense are illegal here after all. We're just don't worship and propagate either of them all the time whenever we get a chance.
We also seem to have less guys with knives who are after our families. I'm just saying there may be a connection.

[Husar]

By that I mean many Americans view Europe as dangerously self-absorbed and not willing to stand up for itself.

Well, a lot of people still blame us for looking after ourselves too much and standing up for our own interests too much.

It's funny when Americans think of Europeans as self-absorbed though, it reminds me of people putting their hand on their chest, singing the national anthem while looking at the star-spangled banner, bombing other countries to bring them democracy and the absolutely unshatterable belief that America are the good guys and that the rogue nations better admit and accept that and submit to America's hegemony and will.
Which, funny enough, runs contrary to the notion that everybody should strive to be in first place all the time, usually propagated by the same people.

Which brings us back to guns being the greatest tools on earth and everybody who doesn't like them hates freedom and is just begging for their family to get hurt, sometimes I get the impression that having a gun in your pocket also makes your body bullet-proof, because a good guy with a gun always wins a fight apparently, it never happens that a bad guy wins.

And no, I don't hate America or Americans, or guns.

As for the chronic apathy, you already have a congress that votes on tons of pork or how you call it all the time with lobbyists ruining every sensible law, how could it get any worse?
Oh yeah, you also have just one party with two logos and roughly 50% of Americans fighting to have their favourite logo on top.

[Beskar]

Fox News seems to agree with your sarcastic note, Husar.

[Husar]

Oh yes mister Cube, if you were to join the chat more often you'd find me rant about european issues quite often as well.

Just out here in the open I adopted the American idea of corporate identity and would never say anything bad about Europe, we're the greatest, we rule, our kindergarten kids could beat your marines and then conquer China without even using guns, man!
Europe is far from being ideal, it's just annoying when Americans try to tell us our countries would be more secure if we had a similar love-relationship to guns like they do.

In the same way it has to be annoying when I tell them that their country still is more violent and would be better if they didn't have that gun-culture.

But the difference is that I'm right and they're wrong.

For the US to ban guns now it's a bit late indeed, but maybe if you stopped embracing violence as your favourite means of "getting things done", there'd be less violence around overall.

Europeans trying to rely on the state and getting everything from the state is a myth anyway as you said yourself, not to forget that the Americans harping on that always assume that most Americans would completely rely on welfare if there were a little bit more than there is today as well.
So that effectively means most Americans would want to be more like Europeans but the good, american, hard-working folks are preventing that?

Now that would be an unfair view as well, my point is actually to vote democrat!
Because a donkey logo is more peaceful than an elephant logo.

As for our own faults and problems, well, we currently have a president who likes to threaten the press whenever they want to release an article about him that he feels uncomfortable with.
Then he promises unforeseen transparency and to answer 400 questions before taking that back and releasing nothing.

Arguably that has nothing to do with Americans loving violence and having power phantasies about guns like never before though.

In other news a man who got sentenced to a year on probation for not paying 44k€ in welfare for his employees didn't just walk out of court, he shot at the judge (and missed) and the prosecutor instead, killing the prosecutor. Happened in Bavaria. Link.
I'm not sure what that says about guns being a good thing, especially since his was illegally obtained.

As for the opinion of the german people on this, I actually read comments saying that it is understandable given how the german state harasses the small job creators with these insurance payments...
Sounds quite American, doesn't it?

How it's understandable to shoot a prosecutor doing his job over a monetary and political issue is beyond my neo-liberal euroweenie brain though. I think it's just nuts.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And, there's an awful damned lot more of you. Something like double our population? What gives Europe?

You are asking this in a gun thread?

That's perhaps the easy way out, but it prompts a few interesting questions:
1) What makes people choose to live in Europe?
2) And how is it that Europe can accommodate them all?

And:
3) How many more people do we need for the French telco's to start offering decent price/performance ?

[rvg]

... it's just annoying when Americans try to tell us our countries would be more secure if we had a similar love-relationship to guns like they do.

It's not about guns. It's about freedom, specifically the freedom to possess and carry them. I do not own a gun, but if I wanted one I could walk into a sporting goods store today and pick me up a nice rifle. Just like that. This kind of freedom deserves all the praise it gets and should be defended at all costs.

[drone]

Fox News seems to agree with your sarcastic note, Husar.

She is correct, just for the wrong reasons...

[Tellos Athenaios]

It's about freedom, specifically the freedom to possess and carry them.

Funnily enough you have that same freedom in Europe as well. All you need to do in order to exercise such freedom is obtaining a licence which is not too difficult.

Us Europeans walk into a bar at age 16 and buy a drink, just like that. A matter of priorities, I guess.

[rvg]

Funnily enough you have that same freedom in Europe as well. All you need to do in order to exercise such freedom is obtaining a licence which is not too difficult.

Us Europeans walk into a bar at age 16 and buy a drink, just like that. A matter of priorities, I guess.

In Germany for example you have to get a separate permit for each firearm you're planning to buy. Oh, and you have to prove that you *need* a gun (i.e. being a hunter or a professional marksman). That's not quite free. That's almost freedom but I prefer to be free, not almost free.

[Husar]

What about your freedom to smoke weed? When was the last time you praised and campaigned for that? I know some do, but there is no National Weed Association yet.
We don't have that freedom here either mind you, but what makes the freedom to buy guns so much more precious when most people never really need them anyway (just like weed)?

And there's the argument we had before. What about the freedom to buy a working tank or F-22? The freedom to check everything your government does? There are quite a few things governments reserve for themselves almost exclusively and whether guns are one of them or not doesn't seem like the biggest freedom issue to me. As Tellos said, your 16 year olds aren't even free to buy beer while ours are.

And please don't say guns keep the government in check, your hear about as many complaints about congress than almost any comparable european institution.

The notable difference seems to be that despite guns, more Americans are really worried about someone coming into their home and harming them or their family.

Here we prefer to be free of such worries.

[rvg]

... but what makes the freedom to buy guns so much more precious when most people never really need them anyway (just like weed)

Because guns allow you to protect yourself.

[Husar]

Because guns allow you to protect yourself.

So does a bullet proof vest.

Are they legal in the US?

[rvg]

So does a bullet proof vest.

Are they legal in the US?

Of course they are.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Guns and gun control at the heart of the issue aren't about self defense from burglars, but about overthrowing tyrannical governments.

And I'd much rather live in a free country than a "safe" country.

CR

[Ironside]

Guns and gun control at the heart of the issue aren't about self defense from burglars, but about overthrowing tyrannical governments.

And I'd much rather live in a free country than a "safe" country.

CR

That's why you have draft. It's impossible for the goverment to have monopoly on the military violence that way.

[Ironside]

There we go. How do people have trouble recognizing the intent here? If gun-control activists would just come out and say "We disagree with the founding fathers, let's change the constitution." then I would have much less of a problem with them. Although I still think they'd be dead wrong. Instead people like to play revisionist, and pretend that this country was not forged in violence with the intent that violence can and SHOULD be used again if our freedom is threatened in any capacity. By foreign invaders or, far more likely, by our own government.

Deal. I'll convince the gun regulators of this, while you convince the gun activists.
"Calculates the need to post for me compared to GC on the matter in this forum. Smiles. Goes on vacation. "

I've been in arguments were my opponent have claimed that the first and second sentence in the second ammendment was totally unrelated and I'm close to Husar in opinion.

[Husar]

Well, our country was not forged in violence, in fact Americans had a lot of say in the making of our current constitution etc. so why do they now say that we are not free because our constitution doesn't allow us to have guns?

And then I would ask where you draw the line? Where is the point where you see your government as tyrannical? Patriot Act and the government banning people from airplanes wantonly and for minor reasons? SOPA? Or just when they want to take your guns away because that alone defines whether people are free?

Do you seriously think Europeans are less free just because of guns? And do you seriously think that guns are THE great enabler for people to tear down a government? The Libyan rebels had a lot of guns but were still losing ground against the government's tanks until NATO bombed those tanks.

I think the idea that guns secure freedom is about as old and outdated as the constitution and some of the ideas your country is based on.

That doesn't mean America is a bad country but I don't think it's wise to try and apply every last of those 18th century wisdoms to the modern world, it's quite obvious when you think about what they thought of black people back then etc.
Not that that's anywhere in your constitution but it shouldn't hurt to question some of these ideas as well given that many, many years have passed since then.

Guns being so threatening to "the government" is probably a reason for some police officers being so incredibly harsh and quick with their trigger finger, something you complain about often and see as a sign of police tyranny. But noone has formed a mob and used their guns to go and kill the police tyrants yet, which brings us back to where do you draw the line?

[Husar]

Your country was indeed forged in violence. I believe you have to dig deeper than politics, and look at the character of your people. We have a lot in common, actually. Germany, as you well know, was a confederation of like-minded states long before it was a nation--and it became a nation through a quick and effective war that characterized the way most people view "German" warfare even today: quick and decisive.

What war would that be? IIRC there were three relatively short ones when Germany was founded for the first time and a really long one before Germany was founded again as it is today.
Germany as it is today is quite different from Germany as it was first founded. The Germany of today was not built on violence, it resulted out of violence but for that very reason it was built on justice and prevention of violence ever playing a big role again.
Our constitution, that was co-developed/heavily influenced by Americans after WW2 doesn't give us the right to bear arms and use them against the government like the second amendment does.
So when Americans say that guns are a fundamental requirement for a people to be truly free, it reads to me like either americans of the late 1940ies didn't want us to be free at all and didn't apply any ideals to us (you might say that's understandable after WW2) or they simply agreed that there are other checks and balances in the constitution that would save the german people from being enslaved by their own government. Or is there something I'm overlooking?

That said, I'm certainly not saying you're not free. Whoever is saying that, they are dead wrong. Germans are not Americans, and this is something that goes way beyond blood and into the idea of national character. I would never presume to tell a German how to run his country.

That's okay, coming from the better country it would be more appropriate for me to tell you how to run your country anyway.

I think we crossed the line long ago, but until the majority of Americans feel that way there's really nothing to be done about it. Eventually, it will get bad enough for people to realize something has to be done, but whether that's accomplished through violence or talk is yet to be determined. Talk would be noble and ideal, but violence is often necesarry and should not be abhored simply for being a course with intense risk. Any American not willing to get gunned down for his freedom really doesn't deserve it, but we're a long ways off from people needing to prove it, I hope.

Ah yes, but then is freedom not more dependant on education and the will of the people to work for it than whether or not they have guns?
We got our first green minister president here (president of one of the 16 countries) when the people didn't like how the previous government handled building a train station.
While I think it's a bit silly to oppose a new train station that much, no guns were required and heads rolled without more than a few clashes between police and some guys going too far by throwing rocks.
The people can exert a lot of power in a working democracy and voting for the right people can be a lot more powerful than having a gun IMO.
And that's where I see the problem with the USA's near-identical-two-party-system where loads of change and differences are promised but in the end you always get more or less the same with a slightly different tint.
There are some similarities here actually but these parties also lost a lot of votes to smaller parties, a danger that they don't seem to face in the US (where both parties are usually nearly balanced etc.) and that seems to put them back on track and rethink their positions. Signs of a working democratic system for me.

Now the USA aren't exactly undemocratic but the two parties seem very bland to me anyway and even Obama who promised so much change was unable to achieve a lot of it.
It just doesn't seem like the government is very worried about all the gun-wielding citizens anyway and passes a lot of unwanted regulations anyway.
Gun ownership may thus be a small part of the huge puzzle of things that are a sign for freedom in a country but by itself it seems so minor that the embracement it gets seems way over the top to me.
It is neither fundamental nor sufficient in ensuring that a democracy doesn't turn into a dictatorship or oligarchy or whatever.

And I would consider myself a gun nut of sorts, not that I'm a gun-expert but a rather interested/fascinated person so I don't just hate these things.

Once again, I don't think you're less free because you have less guns. If Europeans are less free (and I don't know that they are, mind you) it would be for completely different reasons. And no, guns won't fight a modern Army, but they symbolize the right and the freedom to try. This is an important part of American psychology. Once again, I would never presume to understand your culture even though I do try. Is it too much to ask the same in return? Blanket generalizations are the weak-minded answer to a smaller world. We need to stop that trend.

Yes, that's fine, still doesn't help to cling to a symbol that is essentially useless though. And get on other peoples' nerves by pretending that it actually is useful and insinuating they need it too to be truly free.
I know you didn't do that but some other statements here read like that to me.

I completely disagree. This nation was founded on ideas and revolution--not Borders, Dynasties, or any other common unifying factor. Those ideas ARE this Nation. It is appropriate to revise where appropriate--i.e.: where there is absolutely no precedent, or where a political reality has changed to allow for MORE freedom (i.e. Emancipation, giving women the vote, ect.). It is not okay in order to tear down a fundamental ideal. That would be an even bigger insult on our National heritage than the gaggle of corrupt and lazy politicians we have sitting in the capitol.

Oh no you don't. If the idea of gun ownership was so fundamental then why did they forget it at first and then add it in an amendment?
I completely agree that such changes should be well thought out and carefully made and not touch all the ideals. But then I already said changing it now wouldn't help a lot and it's not the second amendment as such that I see as problematic but how many people worship it, i.e. the culture around it.

We have done a fairly good job of adjusting our laws for the modern world. Amazingly, we've accomplished more in less time with our quaint and outdated ideals than any nation or Empire ever could have (or ever did) under a tyrant or dictator. I'm of the firm belief that our power on the international scene is by far more of a cause for harm than good, and if anything needs to change it is that. And what would it change to? Right back to the non-interventionist policies that were (shocker!) envisioned by the founders.

Ah yes, this interventionism is coming from that culture that thinks violence and being proactive about everything is the best way to get what you want, many other have it, too, mind you.
It's not US-exclusive but indeed somewhat troublesome.
Our original founder also favoured non-interventionism and diplomacy but then we ended up with Hitler!

The behaviour of Police is due to bad training, too much money (and not nearly enough of it going where it is needed), and a tendancy for the wrong kind of person to want to be a cop. Once again, this comes down to respecting the subtle differences between cultures. The Police in most places are a class and culture unto themselves.

Yes, there are tendencies of police being too much among themselves here as well, I think it's typical group behaviour and can be seen in the military, fire service and almost any other tightly-knit group as well. Having a dangerous life-threatening job just exaggerates the group behaviour. And being around even more people willing to use their guns makes it even more life-threatening and thus increases the "us vs. them"-thinking within the group...
Thus is my argument, it's hardly perfect anywhere, but there isn't just black and white either.

I hope that's been somewhat helpful, without being too inflammatory.

I think I'm on fire.

But wait:

lol, I was about to finally go to bed, but this topic got me all riled up. Looks like I get to start the day early.

Maybe it was too inflammatory after all...

[Husar]

Understand something, and understand it well: At the end of WWII, your nation was shattered, beaten, and still considered incredibly dangerous. For decades following the war, the UN would argue over whether or not Germany could ever be trusted again. There was little to no idealism involved on our part--just practical necessity.

Also, I was talking about the Franco-Prussian War of 1871. Unless I'm mistaken that's how Germany came to be, and it came to be through war. But any other way you want to define it still works. Is Germany the result of Roman intervention? Bloody and warlike. The result of hundreds of years of being involved in the Holy Roman Empire? No less bloody and warlike. The result of WWII? So bloody and warlike, it defies any other description. I understand where your argument is coming from, and honestly this is a tangent anyway, but your country was forged in violence whether you want to admit it or not.

No, it wasn't. If we see West Germany as the precursor to the nation we have now, it was forged in 1949, WW2 ended in 1945. While the war was what destroyed the Reich and ultimately lead to the forging of the nation, it wasn't forged in a violence but in a post-war climate of never wanting to go to war again and certainly as you say, the Americans not wanting us to go to war again.
It was forged as a most peaceful nation and not as one that uses war and violence as a means to achieve it's goals, which is what your nation thrives on since it had to wage and win a big war in order to come to existance. The idea of what war and violence achieve is a completely different one in our two nations.

While it seems over the top to you, I find your inability to understand where I'm coming from to be just as irritating. If not more. We're quickly approaching a day and age where people may need to actively stand up for their freedoms. If that scares people, or if that makes them uncomfortable, good. Nothing is worth it that's not earned.

I understand where you're coming from, I just wish you came from somewhere else.

As I always understood it, our forefathers fought and died so we would never have to fight and die again and can solve our issues at the ballot box.
If you say we will definitely have to rise again and die and fight to resolve our issues then that means our forefathers have failed and died in vain.
It also means that our entire systems and democracies are not working, which I think is not the case, at least over here. It's not perfect but not beyond repair either.
If the USA are a nation built upon the idea of recurring civil war and bloodshed, that's okay if you like it but please keep me out of it because that's not the kind of nation I want to hand over to my children.

Also China would intervene and conquer you while you're busy.

This is integral to our being. This is the concept of ultimate and unblemished freedom, and the idea that death is preferable to being chained. And before you say it: I know that's unrealistic and idealistic, but that's the point.

It's just silly and I would also divide it by religion.
As a Christian, the argument works because heaven is great, then again as a Christian you believe that you will worship god all the time in heaven and not run around toting guns, you also believe that killing is a sin and violence shouldn't be used to get anywhere. And that doesn't fit with the second amendment at all.
Now that we have established that all Americans (except the Amish and so on of course) are actually atheists, why is *the end*/*nothing*/*blackout*, the ceasing of neurochemical activity or what you want to call it preferable to watching the nice blue skies and lush green grass with a chain on your hands and a chance to become free without actually dieing?
And why do people in prison not kill themselves?

Oh yes I do. The Bill of Rights (of which the 2nd Amendment is part) is the perfect example of appropriate revision. It was specifically added so that people would not have to fear their own government. Every amendment in there is for the same larger purpose: to protect the citizens from a government that might eventually not care all that much for what they think. Rather than disproving my point, all that does is re-enforce it.

Don't get me wrong, though: there are countless examples of our idealogies and freedoms being betrayed by our own government and our own people. The only thing I can really say about it is that we're a free country, for now at least, and it is up to the people as a whole to regulate their government in the end. Many Americans simply can't be bothered.

That's because the two-party system seems to be unable to achieve the regulation they want at the ballot box. Some people in Germany thought that about our two major parties and so they made a new party which is actually taking votes away from what were our previous major parties, similar to how our smaller parties grow stronger at times where people grow tired of the major ones.
This is a system where you can actually achieve some political change and get a say in government without having to despair because the system is pretty much locked between two parties that no other party can compete with.

Your people fear the government quite a bit and even you think it's ultimately out to get you and you will have to fight it any maybe die fighting it. If the second amendment reduces fear of the government, then it seems like you'd all be terrified of your government without it. Time to rethink the system perhaps?

I find your version of history intrigueing. Let's twist it for my point of view, for a moment, okay? Let's say Germany had never made those entangling treaties with Austria. Would they have been dragged into WWI? Would WWI have ever started? Would Hitler have ever come to pass, then?

Hahahahaha.
Seriously? You think I meant Kaiser Wilhelm II. when I said non-interventionist leader?
He sent gun boats around, insulted other nations' leaders and wanted to get colonies.
The person I meant was Bismarck and he didn't use treaties to entangle us, he used them to prevent war.

And I was joking anyway, using a terribly simplified version of history.

I know what-if scenarios are dumb, but come on.

They're fun.
And a requirement for proper risk-assessment.

There are very, very few examples of interventionism ever being a good thing for the little people--and the little people are the only ones that should matter in America (Actually, I phrased this poorly. The poor and weak are the responsibility of the rich and powerful. The American Dream, and the riches and wealth associated with it, come with a responsibility to the people under you that should not have to be regulated--it should be understood as basic decency).

There's trickle down so that's not an issue at all.

If the poor and the weak can't be treated properly, then the rich and powerful are directly to blame. That's my personal belief, and something that even a lot of Americans would scoff at. Even other people of a Libertarian bent.

The lazy leeches are being treated properly!

Kind of. Close enough, really. In the Army, you see exactly what you're talking about, but you also see the positive side of risking your life and facing danger. There are emotional and psychological benefits to be reaped from risking your life, just like there are incredible pitfalls and disasters.

Yes, but that depends a lot on strength of character and not all people assess that and the risks associated with it properly before going to risk their lives. Which also means that having to risk your life in order to be free is a pitfall some people cannot avoid and an inherently dangerous idea that doesn't take into account the weak which is a requirement that should be met by the powerful as you just said.
As such any political system that works on the premise of requiring people to risk their lives in order to restore it after unevitably getting corrupted as per it's design, is rotten and badly designed.

In my town, at least, the cops like to troll the streets at night looking for homeless people to beat up--which says to me that they're cowardly people who joined the police just to exert power over people better than themselves.

I'm not sure whether these lazy commie leeches are better than hard-working police officers but they should be fired for beating up people without a reason and never get a job again so I can call them lazy commie leeches when they inevitably end up homeless.

Burn baby burn...

[Husar]

Yarr, once more into the crack in the wall.

Does that mean I'm a horrible person to debate with or just that you think I'm actually angry?

I won't do the quote-monster thing this time

Hmm, yes, I only saw how long my last post was after I posted it and I actually wanted to try and shorten the post length, so here goes:

2. I can actually agree with that, but still find it preferable to have a police force that actually does a good job in keeping criminality low, including their own.

3. I'm not denying anything, I'm saying our system is not beyond repair yet and it's always preferable to avoid a revolution if possible.
Whether guns are enough for the people to defend themselves against tanks is a completely different question though, in case a of a modern revolution it's best if the army isn't very loyal to the rulers as the arab spring has shown.

And yes, I always talk about Bismarck!
He's my hero because he didn't cause any intervention to destroy our nation.