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

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I think the idea that guns secure freedom is about as old and outdated as the constitution and some of the ideas your country is based on.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

[Ironside]

Neither! It means I'm enjoying this. Its a fun debate. I just brain-farted on how to spell breech (breach?).

And the product of this debate is that we now have a better understanding of the cultural difference here. You have different priorities, but at the core you have the same democratic values that put the safety and wellfare of the people above that of the leaders. Where we differ is how to go about it, and even then not by much. The biggest difference is that I see danger as being much more imminent than you do. Whether that's a product of cultural difference or personal difference is hard to discern, but it would need a whole new debate: How bad is it? Just how imminent is social collapse, to one degree or another?

I think the big difference is how much the system is based on trust. Here and I think in Germany (we're quite similar) it's a much higher trust in the goverment and the faceless bureacrat and even the crook isn't supposed to be going that far.

The US? The corrupt goverment robs you, the bureacrat screws you and the crook is going into your house guns blazing. According to some.

[rvg]

...The US? The corrupt goverment robs you, the bureacrat screws you and the crook is going into your house guns blazing. According to some.

Which is why the crook needs to die. It'll brighten my day.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

This is true.

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.

This is true. It was 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.

No system "works". Every system breaks down after a certain period of time.

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.

Well, that's your prerogative.