If you ran your country, what would you do?

There are regulations about free speech, though. Like I said, you can't create a public disturbance, or shout "Fire!" in a crowded public place. So how should firearms be any different, in the interest of safety?

 

Driving is actually a far more useful skill in our society then knowing how to use a gun.


Yes, such a useful skill polluting our air because we're too lazy to ride a bike or *gasp* WALK!

 

Yes, but who's busy educating everyone who owns a voice not to yell "Fire!" in a crowded public place?


...but just for fun, imagine all the idiots with guns firing on command...

 

Yes, such a useful skill polluting our air because we're too lazy to ride a bike or *gasp* WALK!

So how exactly do you propose I get to the supermarket, which is too far to walk or bike anyway, and brings those bags and bags of stuff home, without a car?

 

"But you don't mind invading someone's privacy to make sure they know how to use a gun?"

What downside do you see to more safety training, aside from a violation of your particular principles?

Any other would-be rulers out there? C'mon, we need more good ideas.

Moriarte:

"Am I to take it to mean that under that "rule", we could only own firearms, just not use them?"

Not at all. Guns are very powerful tools, and those who would use them should learn to do so responsibly.

 

I meant "FIRE!!!!" as in "The building's on fire, run, run, before you burn to a crisp!"

 

*Ahem*. I know what you meant, as I've heard the example before.

I just got this image of someone yelling "Fire!" in the midst of a well-armed crowd. I thought it was worth a chuckle...

 

Ah. I get the joke now.

 

Funny stuff. How about using a good ol' horse and buggy? That seemed to work in the old days. People are so stupid when concerned with driving. You don't need to drive everywhere.

 

Yes. But back to the point... No one's requiring anyone to take a course on the limitations on their freedom of speech before they exercise it.

Yes, guns are dangerous - but speech is dangerous, too. There's a reason both were specifically mentioned in the Constitution. If you put any requirements on gun ownership, isn't that infringing on someone's rights, and going beyond the reasonable limitations (e.g. you can't go around shooting carelessly)?

 

It used to be our constitutional right to own black people. The Founding Fathers knew that things would change, that they didn't get it perfect; that's why we have the amendment system in the first place.

There are too many accidental gun deaths in this country, from stray bullets, accidental discharges, cases of mistaken identity ("burglars" who turn out to be the shooter's children--it's happened) and children who never learned any better. Teaching new gun owners lessons in responsibility would help to curb that. Does that alone not merit consideration--and at least a stronger rebuttal than general principle?

I have a little brother, and the way I see it, his right to live overrules some other kid's right to find his daddy's gun and play cowboy.

 

So, you could say the same thing about speech. Words can't directly cause physical harm, so how can they be regulated?

Darth Geist, womberty, one of you has to change your icon! I keep getting you mixed up!

 

"Darth Geist, womberty, one of you has to change your icon! I keep getting you mixed up!"

I was here first.

 

Religion is an out-dated form of government, they just don't realize that their time has come and gone yet. I don't care about religious freedom. If I were to say "Convert everyone to christianity" then you could complain about it. But I'm not, it needs to be abolished.

So are you just referring to organized religion or any religion/spirituality/belief in God or some divine being?

Yes, such a useful skill polluting our air because we're too lazy to ride a bike or *gasp* WALK!

Too Lazy? I can't really go anywhere near where I live without having to cross highways. I'd get killed if I tried to walk to the grocery store, or restaurants, or the mall, the airport, or anywhere else I go during the week. Not to mention it's really far.

How about using a good ol' horse and buggy? That seemed to work in the old days.

Horses were a little more common in the old days...I don't exactly have enough money to buy a horse nor a yard big enough to keep one in. And where would I find a buggy in central New Jersey?

 

I'd like to request that we move all gun-related discussion to the new "Gun Control" thread (currently located directly below this one).

For anyone else who wants to take a crack at it, how would you run your country? (I'm interested to hear from some non-Americans too.)

 

So, you could say the same thing about speech. Words can't directly cause physical harm, so how can they be regulated?

Words can cause physical harm. Ever heard of someoen who cuts themself because of being teased? Words hurt more than physcial pain. Because you can get shot, die, and have a funeral. But if you're harmed by what someone says it stays with you you never forget it.

 

Thanks, Geist .

 

Wonderful how everyone here wants to infringe on people's lives for no good reason. Just because you dislike religion (in fact, I do too), doesn't mean people don't have the right to belong to a religion and believe in what that religion teaches.

 

It's amusing to see how quickly this intriguing topic degenerated!

Thanks, Obiwansbeard, for trying to steer it back.

Personally, I think the the point of this thread to illustrate what we think is wrong with our country's current policies, whichever country [we] reside in. Whether or not the rules we want are legal, moral, or otherwise is not necessarily to be critiqued here... there are plenty of other threads for that.

Many of us see points within the governments that need changing. In Obiwansbeard's case, Religion is the cause of many problems (I happen to agree, actually), and thus should be corrected. Banning it outright is one way to correct it... although, perhaps not the best way for some.

Aside from a slieu of republic-endorsed lynch mobs, I can't see that any of my suggestions would bring about a revolution, as was noted in the beginning of the thread. Yes, some of it might be extreme, unconstitutional, and/or not the popular thought, but that's not the kind of answer Geist asked for.

 

In Obiwansbeard's case, Religion is the cause of many problems (I happen to agree, actually), and thus should be corrected. Banning it outright is one way to correct it... although, perhaps not the best way for some.

Religion is not the problem though. You don't need to stop religion. You need to stop crimes committed in the name of religion. The people who commit such crimes would find another reason, even if religion didn't exist.

I thought this would be a serious topic about people wanting to really help their countries, and help people keep their important freedoms, not go crazy as dictators. Oh well. Guess I just expect too much from my fellow humans. In fact in seems my fellow Americans don't even care about the freedoms this country was founded on.

 

Okay, Rebecca. What is your answer to the question at hand? What would you do if you ran the country?

 

I don't know that I'd have any huge goals. I'd mandate job training for welfare recipiants, and direct funds to help abused and neglected children. I'd make free birth control easily available. I'd require a test for people seeking a gun license. Other than that, not much really. I'd just do my best to keep the country running smoothly without regulating things the government has no business in, like reproduction or people's religion or lack of.

 

I just read Obiwansbeard's post.

Dude, you are my freakin' hero! I TOTALLY agree with everything in that post. I've posted some of the same things in other threads here in the senate. I think the world would be a much safer and peaceful place if your suggestions were ever implimented! Bravo!

 

1. Get rid of the Republican and Democratic parties. I'm a Washingtonian who strongly believes that division in politics is a division in people. We don't need people fighting and bickering on topics which ultimately gets us no where as a country.

Instead it's one represented body of elected officials from each state who speak for the people in their region.

2. No lobbyist at all. Nail corruption at the heart and that is lobbyist. That will cut down on big coorporation CEO's stealing people's rightful money.

3. eliminate all hate groups in America. KKK, Neo-Nazi's and other hate groups which promote violence are no longer protected under the first ammendment. That is it, nothing else will be changed about the first ammendment.

4. Re-written 2nd ammendment fitting the times we live in. Require mandatory gun training and safety locks on all guns.

5. Education will be a big part of the budget. Provide more money to inner city and decayed areas money for new schools and facilities to provide hope for the future in areas in which there is no future.

6. National Defense comes second. Where we aggresively go after any and all groups which may compromise the safety of our country.

7. Once and for all the end the bickering on Abortion. It will be the womans right to choose what she will do not the governments.

8. End Affirmative action. No longer needed.

9. Omit in the Census what race or religion you are. I'm big on stopping the division of people. It's what gets us into so much trouble. In doing so scrap all these things like African American, Latino American, Asian American slogans and adobt the following "AMERICANS" We are all Americans no matter what the color of our skin is or what race we are. The divsions must stop.

10. Create a much more effective and mandatory drug treatment plan for drug users. Throw sellers of drugs in jail and throw away the key. They are a cancer in societies and they serve no purpose. So instead of drug offenders going to jail first they go to a year long treatment school.

Anyway that is what I would do and I think it would make this place a whole lot better.

 

Uh, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

...okay, I stole that quote from somewhere. But still - that's what it says in the Constitution.

That's only part of the text of the 2nd amendment, Womberty, and you know it.

It says the rights of gun ownership for a citizens militia shall not be infringed.

He he.

As far as equating the privacy violation of gun ownership and a license to have children, well, that just doesn't sit right with me.

They both have risks, but one is essential to the survival of the human race, and one isn't. One holds the promise of generating life, and one only destroys it. I'm talking now about intent, not the negative side effects of sex such as STDs.

I also feel compelled to point out that the overpopulation of this planet, not to mention the highest numbers of new onset HIV/STD cases, comes from outside the US and western societies in general. I don't see how regulating sex in america would help that problem.

I do see how banning religion in government would, however . Religion, and pandering to religious groups, has preoccupied our president's social agenda since taking office and resulted in such lovely decisions as halting funding for clinics that dispense free condoms and sex ed for even mentioning the word abortion. I might also add that this has hurt countries with the highest birth and HIV rates, and both have gone up since then. These countries also tend to have much lower per capita income than the US. And let's not forget trying as hard as possible to stifle to very real promise of embryonic stem cell research because of the offense to "Christian morality".

Oh, what fun I would have as the leader ..

Peace,

V-03