The president-elect of the United States of America wouldn't be where he is today if it weren't for one of the most revolutionary recent changes in the USA, which was entirely accomplished without weapons. It all started with a woman who refused to get off of a bus, and it has led to the election of a black president. Interesting how history works.

Originally Posted by briand

There were lynchings, fire-bombings, snipers, and violent extremists acting out on both sides of the issue.

Originally Posted by qole

Someone (a European colleague of mine) pointed out to me recently that American politics have a second axis, not just left-right; they also have the "republican" axis, which sometimes aligns with "right-wing" or "conservative," but often it doesn't; the Republican belief in small government and minimal regulations has some right-wing implications, but "republicanism" has many more implications, especially in the area of gun ownership and "libertarianism," that in other countries would be considered fairly left-wing. This has helped me understand the American mindset a lot more.

...with "capitalist individualism" in the equivalent of the Libertarian corner...

Originally Posted by Texrat

But what this comes down to is probability and practicality, as I said before. I don't believe the people claiming guns can all be taken away are thinking this through.

There are just too many guns in the hands of American citizens for that to happen. And while I'm cognizant of frog boiling and slippery slopes, I am also aware of tipping points-- and one would come into play here.

Originally Posted by Texrat

The US government would be seen worldwide as just as evil as the regimes we have attacked for doing what we would be doing.

Originally Posted by geneven

Now we're talking about the motivation of the war in Iraq?

Originally Posted by geneven

As is the case with many ideologues (see this thread we are in), the Bush administration was living in a dream world. I think they actually believed: [...]

Originally Posted by fatalsaint

I would say that if you wanted to trace it back to it's roots it started with Abraham Lincoln and the civil war.. which was fought with weapons.

Originally Posted by itschy

If you REALLY want to trace it all the way back, it all started with Adam and Eve. So it all comes down to apples. ;-)

Originally Posted by Karel Jansens

You said safety checks for car buyers were a bad analogy, because even if a car can kill, it's intended use isn't that.

Originally Posted by fatalsaint

I would say that if you wanted to trace it back to it's roots it started with Abraham Lincoln and the civil war.. which was fought with weapons. Without the civil war, Parks wouldn't have been even riding on the bus in the first place.

And without the constant fighting in the streets and the zealots on both sides.. nobody would have cared enough to have actually enacted change.

Originally Posted by fatalsaint

Lets try this... a gun can be used for sporting puposes and is merely a tool people use for certain puposes.

A car is also used in sports and is a tool used for certain puposes.

A drunk driver on a crowded freeway can cause as many deaths, if not more, than any assault rifle. And in fact.. in 2005, according to these sites:
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/f...tatistics.html
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

Originally Posted by baksiidaa

I don't know why the right-wingers get blamed for all the problems. Who's been in control of the current less-effective Congress? Which Senator/President-Elect has a huge number of "present" votes? To say that the Republicans are the only ones backed by special interests is a huge mistake, and to say that the Democrat's policy will fix all the problems you bring up is partisan talk and not good reasoning.
The Democrats complain about high gas prices and want to exempt the oil companies from tax breaks other corporations receive. If the oil companies have to pay more taxes, do you really think they'll lower their gas prices? Is this policy driven by a desire to lower gas prices or kowtow to the environmental special interest? You complain that insurance takes up 10% of your family income. If the government takes over, where is all the money for health care going to come from? Do you really think the government can provide health care at lower costs? Look at tax rates in countries with socialist health care.