Whats up with all the non-citizens advocating gun control here?

[Wcross]

I am curious as to why they debate gun control policy in the U.S.?

[Uber Llama]

1. Guns

According to Osama bin Laden, the easiest places for terrorists to obtain automatic weapons are the United States and Sub-Saharan Africa. Arfica has brutal repressive dictators. We have John Ashcroft. He suggests doing everything leagally until the last second, according to a brochure found in the possession of Taliban members.

[Wcross]

3. Osama is mistaken

It is extremely difficult to obtain automatic weapons in the United States.

[enfield collector]

5. very dificult and expensive for us honest citizens. not very dificult

for crims who don't obey the laws.

[LibLabUK]

7. It's expensive for criminals..

in other ways.

Expense is not only about money.

[FeebMaster]

9. Here we go again.

I'm sure the fellow who just gunned some folks down in a drive-by is extremely concerned about the extra time he's facing for using an unregistered machine gun.

[DonP]

10. Yeah, thats right

In this country you have to go through an FBI background check and pay a $200 tax fee to buy a select fire weapon.

According to my BiL, the Chicago cop, the going estimated $ for an illegal full auto is around $500 and up.

In a ME street market the going rate for a full auto AK-47 or 74 with four full mags is about $50 US.

That must be Sarah Brady's copy of the Taliban Terror manual designed to scare people. Maybe the bad guys will just buy the semi auto version for $300+ each and do that easy paper clip and chewing gum conversion to full auto we are always hearing so much about ... from people that have never handled or worked on one in their life.

Yeah, the terrorists are really swarming over here to pick up their weapons.

[slackmaster]

11. Osama bin Laden lied

Obtaining an automatic weapon in the US is a major PITA.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/index.htm

[goju]

2. Not to dis my new UK friends but

he brings up a good point. I like a good debate as much as the next guy so Im not bitching but, is the spirit of debate the ONLY reason, or is some other reason you advocate gun laws here?

I can understand the Canadian position, not heard from any Mexicans yet but that would be understandable also.

[LibLabUK]

4. My reasons..

"is the spirit of debate the ONLY reason, or is some other reason you advocate gun laws here?"

Well I was planning on invading... :)

I just like the debate, it's contentious and the people on both sides argue passionately, which makes for a much more interesting dialogue (when people actually engage in debate).

I'm quite interested in public policy, mostly with regards to public health, and guns and gun-control is one issue that encompasses debate not only about rights and responsibilities but also public health and safety.

[goju]

12. Good reasons

;)

I too enjoy the debate. And you learn alot if you put in some effort. I was actually surprised how much information you can glean if you just make the effort and take the time to sort it out.

[TX-RAT]

27. Well I was planning on invading...

Bring beer. I'll fire up the B-Q pit.

[goju]

28. What the hell

do texans know about bbq?

[TX-RAT]

29. Are you challenging me to a Duel?

If so, it's tenderloins at 15 paces, or brisket at 5, it's hard to throw a 20lb brisket.

[goju]

32. So

Brisket it is! Ribs will be my second ;)

[TX-RAT]

34. Oak or Mesquite?

Never could cook ribs.

[goju]

35. Hickory

Beef ribs are the way to go. Not fond of pork.

Secret rib recipe: Boil for 3 hours or smoke them for 6, burn the hell out of them on a hot grill, slather with sauce and eat! Shhhh, dont tell anyone :)

[skippythwndrdog]

36. You ain't lived until you've had BBQ mutton

Cook it slow for about 24 hours over a bed of hickory coals basting throughout the cooking until it falls off the bone.

Now that's some good BBQ.

But then again, I like BBQ beef, pork and chicken almost as well. Cook it over mesquite, oak, apple, hickory - it's all good A little slaw, potato salad and/or beans or all three and you're set to go!

As Lweis Grizzard once put it he had to leave Chicago and go back to georgia because he couldn't find 'a barbecued pork pig sammich and a long neck beer' up north. Grits were next on the list. I think biscuits and gravy (white sauce to all you east coast Yankees) were third.

I don't think there will ever be any argument as contentious as one about perfect BBQ. It's a cause for a fight in southern states. It can make the RKBA issue look like a kindergarten playground scuffle.

[goju]

37. "make the RKBA issue look like a kindergarten playground scuffle"

No doubt there. And its not confined to southerners, the fight is spreading like CCW laws ;)

[TX-RAT]

40. mutton"?

Your trying to start the range wars again?

[skippythwndrdog]

41. Draw!

I think I just got called a sodbuster.

[TX-RAT]

42. Gal durn sheep herders

You don't always see them, but ya can always smell them.
Don't you know, sheep were born into this world, looking for a place to die.

[skippythwndrdog]

43. Yup.

I prefer that they go out in a blaze of epicurean glory - on my BBQ pit.

[TX-RAT]

39. Your secrets safe with me.

[LibLabUK]

31. Will do..

Do you need me to bring napkins? I wouldn't want to get sauce on my nice red coat :)

[skippythwndrdog]

6. IMO

It's just a desire to meddle in the affairs of others.

[iverglas]

15. so tell us

" It's just a desire to meddle in the affairs of others."

Is this desire a genetic trait? Did the "desire to meddle in the affairs of others" gene get passed on from the folks in the U.K. to the people who settled Canada, e.g., but get screened out by the transporter that the ones who settled the U.S. passed through?

Is it a behavioural disorder caused by something in the water, the way lead poisoning affects kids? Or maybe by living under the thumb of a constitutional monarchy, in some cases.

I dunno. Generally, I tend to think that when people have a "desire" to do something, it's because they believe that some benefit (for themselves or someone else) will be produced by doing it.

But of course, there are always those who just do things because they have a right to do 'em ...

Have you put a great deal of thought into that opinion of yours? Can you enlighten us further? What is the source of this "desire"; what is the reason it arose, and what purpose do those who act on it have in mind?


In the alternative, if you can't provide that enlightenment, maybe you can just say something even dumber for us all to snicker at ... if we can stop laughing hysterically at the idea that someone else in the world could be more desirous of meddling in the affairs of others than the citizenry of the USofA for long enough to read it.

[goju]

17. And maybe...

"But of course, there are always those who just do things because they have a right to do 'em ..."

There are those who just do things because they have the time to do 'em

;)

[mosin]

30. Because

But of course, there are always those who just do things because they have a right to do 'em ...

You say that like it's a bad thing. ;)

Unexercised muscles get weak.

Unexercised rights tend to disappear.

[FeebMaster]

8. The four or five pro-control people

from the US would be so lonely without them.

[skippythwndrdog]

13. Too true! n/t

[Paladin]

45. Gotta Love The Smug Attitude

We 4 or 5 gun-control people remember that just a few days ago, you got your head handed to you by the folks in General Discussion for your advocacy of unregulated silencers. Or have you forgotten that little incident?

If most DU participants choose not to deal with you RKBA militants down here in the dungeon, it only speaks to their good taste and judgment(wish I was more like them in those respects). It sure as hell isn't you guys' powers of persuasion.....

[FeebMaster]

46. Oh please,

that thread was locked in 10 posts, before I even had a chance to respond to most of the replies. Yeah I got my head handed to me. :eyes:


So has anyone come up with a legitimate reason for regulating silencers yet? I mean beyond the usual I like gun control no matter how stupid it is arguments.

[iverglas]

14. what's even curiouser

I am curious as to why they debate gun control policy in the U.S.?

Me, I'm curious as to why you would characterize things said by people about the merits of various public policies, and about the facts that relate to those policies, as being about the U.S.. Why do you interpret anyone's contribution to a discussion of the issues relating to firearms control as debating gun control policy in the U.S.? Why do you assume that just because you're reading what someone says, s/he is talking about you??

If I engage in a discussion of the merits of restricting access to abortion, I am not debating abortion policy in the U.S.

If I engage in a discussion of the merits of limiting election campaign spending, I am not debating electoral policy in the U.S.

If I engage in a discussion of the merits of a universal health care plan, I am not debating health insurance policy in the U.S.

UNLESS, that is, I specifically advocate that a particular policy be adopted in the U.S.

And THEN, if I do it out of genuine concern for the well-being of my fellow human beings in the U.S., I really don't expect to be regarded as some intermeddling foreigner.

I mean, is that how you expect to be regarded if you advocate that measures be taken against child labour in the developing world, or that some foreign tyrant stop torturing and executing his/her political opponents, for instance? I'd expect that you would expect to be regarded as a good guy.

And ALSO, if I advocate that a particular policy be adopted in the U.S. because of the effects of U.S. policy on my own country or on some third country, I really don't expect to be regarded as some intermeddling foreigner.

I mean, is that how you expect to be regarded if you advocate that some foreign country not grant entry to people plotting to blow things up in the US, or that some foreign government do something about people producing toxic toys and smuggling them into the US? I'd expect that you'd expect to be regarded as having an absolutely legitimate interest in the safety and security of your own fellow citizens.

Of course, I know that us foreigners don't get to have such expectations. We don't get to have any say in what goes on inside the US or is done by USAmericans outside the US, no matter how much it affects us or anyone else, whether inside or outside the US.

The rest of us, we don't run the show; we're just along for the ride. And there's no point in claiming we don't enjoy it; all we do when we say such things is demonstrate our own inferiority. If we were as smart and advanced as you folks in the USofA, we'd know that the way you do things there is the only right and good way. But we're just dumb, and we should just shut up.

But maybe y'all should watch out down there ...

http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/pakleds

While Picard and Wesley travel to Scylla 515, the Enterprise receives a distress call from the Pakleds. The Pakleds, a race of slow-witted humanoids, need help to repair their ship. Riker beams Geordi aboard the Pakled vessel. Suddenly, Geordi is disarmed and the Pakleds refuse to release him until Riker surrenders all of the Enterprise's computer information.

you think we are not smart

we are strong now; we have better weapons

But the really curious thing is why on this green earth anyone would not want to know what other people think about anything. Beats me.

[goju]

16. Wow

Too much free time? And what could possibly interest you in Star Trek?

It was a legitimate question, regardless of your protest. Lest you forget, this site resides in the US and is focused on the interests of the US political process. I dont think that means foriegn opinions are not welcome, but clearly the discussion is about US policy for the most part. To pretend not to know that, or to need "interpretation" is not exactly giving the poster any earnest consideration.

[Wcross]

22. Gee...

""Me, I'm curious as to why you would characterize things said by people about the merits of various public policies, and about the facts that relate to those policies, as being about the U.S.. Why do you interpret anyone's contribution to a discussion of the issues relating to firearms control as debating gun control policy in the U.S.? Why do you assume that just because you're reading what someone says, s/he is talking about you??""

Well this entire message board is dedicated to American politics (in case you failed to notice). It isn't a stretch to assume if one posts comments on gun control laws on this board they are talking about the United States.

[Vladimir]

24. Entire message board?

you mean, except for the forums specifically dedicated to debating politics in the UK and Canada?

[Wcross]

47. I stand corrected- never noticed or cared about them.

I don't have a stake in other countries politics. Laws that I may favor don't amount to a hill of beans if I am not effected by them. I figure the fine subjects of the United Kingdom and Canada can decide whats best for themselves without my input.

[Jackie97]

50. Hello?

Do you all really not get that what the superpower adopts as their policy is the world's business because it can help or hurt them?

You all make us look like "stupid Americans" by not realizing this more.

Argue what you want, but don't pretend that this is just about American politics. It makes us look dumb.

I don't normally go on this board, but this just makes us look stupid.

[Wcross]

51. Domestic gun laws can help or hurt other countries?

I asked only about debating our gun laws. Explain how that effects another country?

[Jackie97]

52. As I said....

People living in countries with more gun control in it (and possibly less crime since the US has a very high crime rate) might resort to the black market to get a gun. The best place to get an illegal gun (or one of the best places anyway) is probably the US because our control laws are so loose. It's been made too easy to legally buy a guy. Every illegal gun bought can eventually be traced back to an owner that legally bought it once.

Not to mention, the United States has a horrible habit of trying to inflict our values onto other countries. Think of how some Canadians want to make marajuana legal for medical purposes and how we're giving them hell for that idea. It might be possible that the gun issue can lead out to the same thing.

[FeebMaster]

54. This is the best post ever.

Seriously.

The best place to get an illegal gun (or one of the best places anyway) is probably the US because our control laws are so loose.

You'd better laugh when you say that.

Yeah, I can see it now. Some criminal in Jolly Olde England decides he wants a gun so he hops on a plane to the US to get one. Once he's there he isn't sure if he should get some ID so he can buy a gun "legally" or just head straight to the black market. While that really cheap semi-auto AK clone looks like a steal for $300 or so, he's not sure he wants to go through the hassle of coming up with some ID so he decides to buy a gun on the black market. There, for a few hundred dollars more he buys a full-auto AK. He's happy to get the extra full-auto feature, even though it cost more and he's heard the semi-auto ones are "easily convertible." He can't believe his luck that the very same gun would have cost him thousands of dollars on the legal market. He figures the black market guy was just having a sale or something although he's concerned about getting caught and paying the hidden costs of doing business on the black market. Now all the has to do is get the gun back to England. He hears most of the drugs in the US, including the tens of millions of pounds of marijuana consumed, get smuggled in in people's stomachs, so he's thinking about taking the gun apart and swallowing the parts, but he's not sure.


Or, you know, he could go to Somalia or pretty much any middle eastern country and buy a full-auto AK from a street vendor for $25.

[LibLabUK]

56. Hehe..

"Some criminal in Jolly Olde England decides he wants a gun so he hops on a plane to the US to get one."

The IRA did. Infact, a licenced gun dealer in Florida was convicted of supplying small arms to them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/734469.stm

[FeebMaster]

58. So basically these particular IRA fellows

were idiots and subsequently caught. The article you linked doesn't mention a licensed gun dealer.

[LibLabUK]

59. Sorry...here's the link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/945705.stm

"The elderly Florida arms dealer who had provided most of the weapons, escaped serious punishment.

Ed Blustein was sentenced to just one day in jail because he made a full and frank confession that helped put the three Irishmen behind bars."

And these were just the fellows who were caught, funding and supplies for the IRA have been coming from the US for years through the NORAID programme.

[FeebMaster]

60. Yup. Idiots.

If all IRA members are as dumb as those fellows, I'd call their cause a lost one.

[DoNotRefill]

57. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

"The best place to get an illegal gun (or one of the best places anyway) is probably the US because our control laws are so loose."


Heh. Oh, man. Sorry, I hurt myself laughing at that. Want to buy a black market gun? I'd suggest you talk to 1) the former Warsaw pact, 2) China, 3) the third world, especially Panama. If you're looking for black market guns, those places are FAR easier to get guns from than the US is. Hell, not that long ago, they intercepted a shipment of illegal full-auto machineguns being sent from China to the US, specifically to the gangs in LA. The PLA/NORINCO went as far as to try to sell them armored vehicles.

[iverglas]

69. what's really funny

Want to buy a black market gun? I'd suggest you talk to 1) the former Warsaw pact, 2) China, 3) the third world, especially Panama.

... is how few -- oops, make that how NONE -- of Toronto crime guns, for example, have ever been traced to the former Warsaw Pact countries, or China, or the "third world", let alone Panama.

Nope. So far, they've been home-grown, or purchased in the USofA.

The truth of Jackie97's statement, in relation to Canada, is pretty fucking self-evident, wouldn't we agree?

Yer average criminal in yer average western/industrialized nation just doesn't have a lot of contacts in China.


(spelling typo fixed)

[Jackie97]

62. This is how it effects other countries.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=onegun

“Many states have strict gun laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals, but interstate gun trafficking undermines the effectiveness of those laws. Law enforcement officials report that there is an "iron pipeline" of guns that are illegally trafficked up and down the East Coast of the United States. Gunrunners who operate in cities with tough gun laws (like New York and Boston) travel to states with less restrictive laws (like Georgia, Florida, Ohio and Texas) and buy a large quantity of handguns. Under existing federal law, the purchaser of a handgun must be a resident of the state in which a gun is sold. Out-of-state gunrunners circumvent this law by obtaining false identification (usually a driver's license) or by hiring a local resident, known as a straw purchaser, to make multiple purchases. The guns are then illegally transported to other states and jurisdictions, even other countries, for illegal resale to criminals, children, and other prohibited purchasers.”

http://www11.plala.or.jp/yoshic/gun%20cotrol%20in%20japan%20and%20the%20united%20states.html

“Firearms are circulating all around the world, and approximately 1,000 guns are confiscated in Japan per year. Since 30% of them are from the United States, gun problems in the United States are also problems in Japan”

http://www.psn.gov/Safer.asp?section=109

“Guns purchased in "source areas" can be easily sold on the street in a "market area" for two to three times as much as the trafficker paid for the gun. An easily concealable and inexpensive semiautomatic pistol purchased for $85 in Virginia or North Carolina can be sold for $150 or $200 on the streets of New York City or Washington, DC. These same patterns occur within a state, with firearms moving between regions within that state. They also occur internationally when firearms illegally acquired in the United States are trafficked to Canada, Mexico or other countries. Frequently, the same criminal methods used to obtain firearms in Florida that are destined to be trafficked to New York are employed to illegally obtain firearms destined for South America.”

[Wcross]

65. You are talking about illegal activity

I was refering to legal gun ownership and people that obey gun laws. You also fail to comprehend that the geenie is out of the bottle. There are over 300 million guns in circulation right now, most of them not registered. Given some basic machine tools most people could make a firearm. Guns do not have an expiration date and are made in many countries. The notion that one could rid the United States of firearms is laughable. I noticed you linked to some fine "unbiased" sources. Oh, how the anti's howl when anyone links from a pro gun site!

[Jackie97]

66. I never called all my sources unbiased.

I just figured that since some people here use pro-gun sites, that I could use an anti-gun site.

I do not believe that everybody selling illegal guns are making them. It's simply more efficient on time to buy them from elsewhere to sell for a much higher price. Is there even any evidence that most of these guns are "made" by sellers?

Just wondering. What would you think of a law that would put a number on every gun for the purpose of being able to trace it to where it was originally?

[Wcross]

67. Biased sources are expected.

"Just wondering. What would you think of a law that would put a number on every gun for the purpose of being able to trace it to where it was originally?"

Uh, they are called serial numbers and they are required now. I wish people would take some time to study an issue and know the facts before they come up with ideas for new laws. I guess thats how the "awb" came about, it was written by people who don't know anything about firearms.

I did not claim most crime guns are homemade. I just pointed out that if you shut down all legal gun makers people would still be able to obtain a firearm.

[Jackie97]

68. I should have phrased that better.

I should have just asked how you felt about the serial numbers. The reason I asked is because pro-gun people seem to against anything that would minimize the threat of guns being sold illegally. I had to ask, that's all.

If people had to make guns instead of simply having them "imported" so to speak, then they couldn't has as many to sell. It simply wouldn't be as efficient this way.

Let's put it another way. Suppose you sold dresses. Is it more efficient to make your own dresses to sell or is it more efficient to order them from a clothing company to sell? You simply won't get near as many dresses sold if you have to make them all. It takes too much time. It costs too much. It's just not as efficient.

[iverglas]

70. just curious

Well this entire message board is dedicated to American politics (in case you failed to notice).

Perhaps you would direct me to wherever I need to look, in order to notice this. I've been unsuccessful in finding a source for your assertion, to date.


It isn't a stretch to assume if one posts comments on gun control laws on this board they are talking about the United States.

A stretch? Hey, we wouldn't want anybody having to actually exercise his/her brain, would we?

Actually, you're right; it isn't a stretch. It's a contortion.

[Paladin]

18. Xenophobia Has No Place In a Democratic Forum Like This

You pro-gun "Democrats" need to rein it in, or spend your time where your views on firearms and "ferriners" are more readily accepted, i.e., places like Free Republic.....

[UpsideDownFlag]

33. ye gods. a non-freeped statement in the gungeon.

i do believe pigs are flying outside my window.

[goju]

38. A bit harsh?

I dont think the question was born of spite, or was it? I think he was asking a legitimate question. I dont think he was chasitizing anyone for participating, only asking why.

Legitimate question or am I being naive?

[Wcross]

48. I assure you, it is just a question.

I am just curious thats all. Our gun laws have no effect on the lives of people who don't reside here. So I was curious about the motive of the posters. I have no fear or dislike of people from around the world- My paternal grandparents were British subjects before they moved from Prince Edward island to Portland, Maine. (This was in the 1920's)
I think I did strike a nerve though I didn't intend to.

[goju]

53. One correction

As one Canadian poster down here constantly reminds us, our availability of guns does make trafficking a problem up there. Debateable how much responsibility should be placed on them for policing their own borders but the issue does effect our neighbors.

Of course, the problem could be solved if they were to repeal their draconian gun laws, but thats a whole other issue.

[library_max]

61. Well, they probably don't want to triple their murder rate.

And they are perhaps more authoritative on the subject of whether or not their gun control laws are "draconian," whether or not they have led to jackbooted thugs goosestepping in the streets, etc. Some of our native RKBAers tend to let their imaginations run away with them on that subject.

[goju]

63. Im sure the gun grabbers

would rather NOT have "jackbooted thugs goosestepping in the streets". And the anti gun zealots have clearly outlined that in order to completely decimate our constitutional rights, they will have to take it one step at a time or risk a backlash.

I dont blame anyone for being suspect of any attempt at restricting our constitutional rights. Why wait until its too late?

[library_max]

64. If you had a point other than name-calling, I must have missed it. /nt

[iverglas]

71. now that's an interesting thought

"Of course, the problem could be solved if they were to repeal their draconian gun laws, but thats a whole other issue."

Guess it just depends on how one defines "the problem", doesn't it then?

If the problem is "the firearms used to commit crimes in Canada are imported into Canada rather than being purchased inside Canada", then yuppers -- that problem could indeed be solved if we repealed all our firearms control legislation and regulations.

Somehow, your proposal just strikes me as a solution without a problem, though.


But oh, I see. You did define "the problem":

"our availability of guns does make trafficking a problem up there."

"Trafficking". Well, we'll let you know when we define our problem as "trafficking" -- rather than as the use of firearms to cause injury and death, and to facilitate the commission of crimes. And then maybe we'll come to you for the solution.

In the meantime, we'll just keep working on the real problem, and try to shut up about the extent to which responsibility for it is borne by the US ...

[goju]

72. Responsibility

"In the meantime, we'll just keep working on the real problem, and try to shut up about the extent to which responsibility for it is borne by the US ..."

Lemme get this straight. You dont blame your own border control agency in stopping the gun flow across YOUR borders. You dont blame the gun traffickers, most of them Canadian criminals. You dont even blame the Canadian criminals who actually cause the crime with the guns supplied by the Canadian criminal gun traffickers who your Canadian government failed to stop....you blame the US!!!???

Wow, I can almost feel the love!

[Romulus]

73. rofl (nt)

[iverglas]

74. you're a card

Lemme get this straight. You dont blame your own border control agency in stopping the gun flow across YOUR borders. You dont blame the gun traffickers, most of them Canadian criminals. You dont even blame the Canadian criminals who actually cause the crime with the guns supplied by the Canadian criminal gun traffickers who your Canadian government failed to stop....you blame the US!!!???

You're heard of Plan Colombia, maybe?

Wow, I can almost feel the love!

Not nearly as much as the Colombian peasant farmers feel it when it drops from the sky from those US-supplied helicopters, and not nearly as much as the Colombian trade unionists feel it when it hits them from the barrels of the US-supplied guns wielded by the US-backed fascist militias.

I know. It's okay for the US to tell the citizens of other countries, and their governments, what to do ... and to defoliate their farms and kill their livestock and wildlife, and them, if they don't do it quick enough ... in the effort to protect US interests.

The rest of us are just supposed to shut up. I know this. I already told you I know it. Canadians may not have access to marijuana without fear of a criminal record for the rest of their lives because that's the way the US wants it. (And that's just a f'r instance. We may not decline to invade and occupy small countries, unless we want our beef industry decimated by a bogus non-tariff barrier to trade. Etc., etc., etc.) We really have got the message at this point.

But maybe you can tell me why you folks don't just BLAME YOUR OWN BORDER CONTROL AGENCY for your little drug problem, and leave the rest of us the hell alone?


Just think. IF YOU FOLKS HAD BLAMED YOUR OWN BORDER CONTROL AGENCY for that little incident on 11/9/01, there'd be a lot of Afghanis and Iraqis still alive whose bodies are instead cluttering up the landscape right now.

And hell, the families of all the dead Afghanis and Iraqis should just blame their own border control agencies for not keeping those USAmericans and all their guns out of their country, too. Right?


you blame the US!!!???

Why am I not surprised that I wrote "responsibility" and some Jerry-Springer-reared USAmerican is alleging that I wrote "blame"?

Oh wait. That wasn't an allegation. It was a question. Right?

Yeah. Right.

[goju]

76. No, I wont let you get away with that

You cant blame any or all citizens of the US for the policies of the US government, unless of course they advocate those positions, which I have not. Much like I cant blame the influx of Canadian pot on all Canadians. I have repeatedly called for the end to the drug war. Since that is in large part responsible for our homicide rates, I think ending the drug war is where our efforts should be spent rather than chasing grandpa's shotgun or smoking out some coca field. I do blame my government for their failed policies at home and abroad, do you have ANY scrutiny for your own government's policies?


"Just think. IF YOU FOLKS HAD BLAMED YOUR OWN BORDER CONTROL AGENCY for that little incident on 11/9/01, there'd be a lot of Afghanis and Iraqis still alive whose bodies are instead cluttering up the landscape right now."

We did blame our border control agency, among others, and you should have noticed that. Just read the posts around here, no lack of blame and no ditching responsibility. You might have noticed a shakeup at the CIA and in the INS recently? Im very sure that we will see even more change should Kerry win in November, but will that be "enough" for you? Im pretty sure, however, we didnt blame the manufacturer or country of origin of the box cutters and airplanes used in the 9/11 attacks though.

"And hell, the families of all the dead Afghanis and Iraqis should just blame their own border control agencies for not keeping those USAmericans and all their guns out of their country, too. Right?"

Wow, are you actually comparing a military invasion to the gun trafficking into your country? If only you could get that little false analogy through without anyone noticing, you'd be just fine huh?

"Why am I not surprised that I wrote "responsibility" and some Jerry-Springer-reared USAmerican is alleging that I wrote "blame"?"

Oh yeah I forgot, there is a difference between blaming and assigning responsibility :eyes:. You might be eminently familiar with Star Trek and Jerry Springer but, I am not. If you think we Americans are so stupid, why do you bother with us?

[iverglas]

79. ah yes

We did blame our border control agency, among others, and you should have noticed that. ...

Mm hmm. And so you DIDN'T invade Afghanistan and Iraq in order to solve this little border control problem. Gotcha.


And hell, the families of all the dead Afghanis and Iraqis should just blame their own border control agencies for not keeping those USAmericans and all their guns out of their country, too. Right?
Wow, are you actually comparing a military invasion to the gun trafficking into your country? If only you could get that little false analogy through without anyone noticing, you'd be just fine huh?

Wow, are you actually pretending that you didn't get the point? Or are you saying that you really actually didn't get it? Which could possibly be more embarrassing?


If you think we Americans are so stupid ...

If you want to pretend that this is what I said -- or if you really truly believe that this is what I said -- ... well I guess all I can say is: Exhibit A.

But that was a conditional question, after all:

If you think we Americans are so stupid, why do you bother with us?

If I ask you: If the sky is pink, why aren't you in Paris? I'll bet you won't feel called upon to answer.

[goju]

80. Is that the best you can do

Cant you do better than to pretend that either I havent answered your ridiculous charges, or that you cant understand the answers? Whether you think that tactic is effective or not doesnt change the fact that it is transparent and desperate. You would be well advised to just say "sorry for the arrogance" and move on.

[iverglas]

81. sorry, chum

Cant you do better than to pretend that either I havent answered your ridiculous charges, or that you cant understand the answers?

I said it first. And more grammatically correctly.

Whether you think that tactic is effective or not doesnt change the fact that it is transparent and desperate.

Exactamundo. But do keep it up.

You would be well advised to just say "sorry for the arrogance" and move on.

I'm not gonna offer unsolicited advice, but if I did, it would be a little more accurately targeted. Which isn't to say that you'd get it ... or adknowledge that you did ... anyhow.

[goju]

83. I cant tell you much sense THAT response makes

because I have NO reason to believe that it does. But never mind making sense, right?

[iverglas]

84. lemme spell it out sloooowly

I said:

Wow, are you actually pretending that you didn't get the point? Or are you saying that you really actually didn't get it? Which could possibly be more embarrassing?

You "replied":

Cant you do better than to pretend that either I havent answered your ridiculous charges, or that you cant understand the answers? Whether you think that tactic is effective or not doesnt change the fact that it is transparent and desperate.

As I then said:

I said it first. And more grammatically correctly.


Well, maybe your active listening skills *are* improving. You managed to repeat back to me what I'd said, in your own words. Congrats.

You still haven't managed to actually address anything I said in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=83863&mesg_id=85567&page=
or even to make sense of the ridiculous babble you started it all with:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=83863&mesg_id=84254&page=

But I'm not holding my breath for anything.

[goju]

85. That was a little too slow

You put me to sleep with your repetition of the same ole tired lines.

I addressed your other posts with all the vigor and enthusiasm they deserved. I find it positively unsurprising that you dont like to take what you dish out.

[iverglas]

75. oh, and -- you haven't said

Exactly what problem was it that Canada repealing our firearms control measures was going to solve?

Enquiring minds really do want to know.

[goju]

77. It would solve

You from blaming the US for Canada's social ills.

[iverglas]

78. well gosh

It would solve
You from blaming the US for Canada's social ills.

But I guess that's YOUR problem, so it must be a problem that YOU should solve. Have I got that right?

It sure as hell ain't MY problem, just in case you were wondering.

So I fail to see how OUR repealing OUR firearms laws would solve any problem of OURS -- that being what I thought you were proposing it would do. It was what you were proposing it would do, wasn't it? Let alone, of course, why WE should do anything to solve this problem of YOURS!

Ring a round the rosie; you just fell down.

[goju]

82. Oh the irony is

very very thin!

YOU want to blame the US for Canada's crime problems. I dont consider that MY problem or a US problem. But you can continue to pretend that it is, it wont bother me a bit. When you are ready to place responsibility for Canada's crime problems on Canada's policies, you should then feel free to discuss border control issues rationally.

[iverglas]

86. so how bout we go back where we started

which was here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=83863&mesg_id=84254&page=

As one Canadian poster down here constantly reminds us, our availability of guns does make trafficking a problem up there. Debateable how much responsibility should be placed on them for policing their own borders but the issue does effect our neighbors.

Of course, the problem could be solved if they were to repeal their draconian gun laws, but thats a whole other issue.

... and YOU explain what this "problem" is that could be solved by Canada repealing our firearms control legislation and regulations -- and, IF THAT PROBLEM IS *NOT* firearms violence, what your point is?

Repealing laws against carjacking would solve the "problem" of people getting criminal records for stealing cars with violence. If that's the problem yer looking to solve, repealing laws against stealing cars against violence would sure solve it.

Repealing Canada's firearms control legislation and regulations might solve some "problem". If the problem you are referring to is the one contained in your allegation -- "YOU want to blame the US for Canada's crime problems" -- repeal would sure solve it. And the question would still be: so what?

You were responding to a poster who alleged:

Our gun laws have no effect on the lives of people who don't reside here.

That, of course, is a nonsense and a falsehood. But the issue was nonetheless whether your firearms laws have an effect on people who live outside the US.*I* wasn't even a party to the exchange in which you replied to that poster, as quoted at the beginning of this post.

So how on fucking earth could the problem you referred to be that "<I>want to blame the US for Canada's crime problems"??


Perhaps I should have pointed out several posts ago that your initial assertion was false in the first place:

As one Canadian poster down here constantly reminds us, our availability of guns does make trafficking a problem up there.

I have NEVER said that the easy access to firearms in the US "does make trafficking a problem" in Canada. The trafficking of firearms into Canada from the US is a CAUSE of the problem in Canada -- the problem being FIREARMS VIOLENCE AND CRIME.

[Scout]

87. you have the patience of a saint...

I'd have given up in frustration by now.

:hi:

apparently some people refuse to acknowledge their problems with reading comprehension :evilgrin: "The first step to solving your problem is in admitting you have one."

[iverglas]

88. or a really hard forehead

and forehead-proof glass in the monitor. ;)

(Just got my new driver's licence in the mail the other day. It's a really large forehead, and the photo taker made me tilt my head down for a second pic, so the glasses didn't flash ... so the forehead flashed instead. I'm going to avoid driving in New Mexico in case I get pulled over by a trooper who believes that they are among us and that the camera revealed the real me.)

Anyhow, if I believed that the problem was reading comprehension, I might indeed be very frustrated and the monitor might be in jeopardy. It's pretty safe for now, though.

And if I believed that, I'd be turning to my favourite bit of the literature, for understanding: http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Not that it doesn't come in handy fairly often anyhow.

[Scout]

89. luv ya' iverglas

clicked on the link, read the title, laughed out loud!

I needed that.

Now I better go back and read the article :evilgrin:

[T Town Jake]

19. Hmmm...perhaps a teeny weenie...?

...:shrug:...(snicker)...

Always wanted to be able to say that in a thread from the RKBA point-of-view...now observe the howls of outrage from the gun-grabber side, and watch the rhetorical scrambling and sputtering to justify their constant use & applause of that smarmy rhetorical device with the timeless defense: "b-b-buuutttt when we say it about you...th-tha-that's different!!!"

[Vladimir]

20. What's up with all these Americans debating human rights in Iran? n/t

[Wcross]

21. Perhaps you should ask them....

I asked the question in regards to this message board.

[Vladimir]

23. On this message board then... n/t

[Pert_UK]

25. I like a good debate.......

But failing that, a bloody argument about gun control will have to do.

You could equally ask why a non-citizen would want to visit DU at all, but lots of people have an interest in international politics.

Personally, I think I generally debate gun control in general, rather than specifically in the US. Certainly that will mean replying to comments about specific US situations and laws, but I'm not intending to just criticise the US. I'm more interested in what would be a general good approach to gun control.

I'm definitely not lecturing any US citizens from a standpoint of perceived moral high ground, just adding my opinion to the debate.

I'm interested in guns and gun rights as a former air rifle club shooter and as someone who has always been interested in weapons. I'm interested in debate because my degree is in philosophy, so I'm always happy to fight my corner or illustrate where argument is badly founded or illogical or just ad hominem attacks.

[Township75]

26. "or just ad hominem attacks."

hmmmm, well you must be really dissapointed in this forum then

[library_max]

44. What's so special about JPS?

All the boards in DU discuss American politics, American foreign policy, American domestic policy, etc. Why should DUers from other countries be specifically excluded from JPS? Are we that determined not to hear views that differ from our own?

One issue that comes up with some frequency in this forum is the efficacy and fairness of gun control measures in England, Canada, and Australia, and whether or not those measures inhibit freedom. Who better to answer those questions than natives of the countries in question?

[Jackie97]

49. Maybe....

They want us to enjoy the lack of crime that some of them do.

Maybe they don't want it to be so easy for their citizens to buy guns from the black market, which might have a lot of Americans in it. Every illegal fun was originally bought legally you know.

[DoNotRefill]

55. It's like married people trying to get their single friends to marry...

misery loves company.