Gun ownership right Vs Voting right?

[woodwork201]

Give one good reason why I should register my guns.

My one good reason is.....
What are you afraid of?

we register cars, boats, houses...etc
Wtf are you worried about?

So you're suggesting that the default of human existence is that everything is against the law, the government has absolute power over our lives, our property, our bodies, our souls, and we earn some bits of exemptions by proving why they should not have that power.

I, on the other hand, believe that the default condition of humanity is to be free and completely without the burden of government bonds and chains.

In some nations, government creates itself, establishes itself through tyranny and force. In other nations, they believe the power of government comes from blood and birth.

In our country, government was created by the people, for the people, of the people, and empowered only with those powers explicitly granted in the creation document: our Constitution. Those in our country in it's founding accepted that there were some burdens of government worth bearing in exchange for the protections the Constitution creates but no more government than that and, along with it, no more protections were asked for or wanted.

 

[woodwork201]

Guns aren't the problem. They were easy to obtain all the way up until the 60s and 70s. The first major background check system didn't even exist until 1968. Yet, shootings were far less common before 1968 than afterwards.

The problem would seem to largely be mental health. We had a robust public mental health system up until the late 60s. When that got dismantled, a lot of unstable people entered open society. We also had a lot more homeless people. Bringing back a public mental health system would greatly reduce a lot of violence and homelessness.

States are very much important. Yes, the urban-rural divide is more stark than state divides in some respects, but the decentralization of government allows people to decide their fate. If you want to live in a very liberal place, you can move to a state like Massachusetts. If you want to live in a very conservative place, you can move to Wyoming. Decentralization allows people to pursue their preferences. Centralization would eliminate that, and then the entire system would just be about dominating the federal leadership. Lobbyists would have way more power under that arrangement than they already do.

Which major background check system existed in 1968? The Brady Bill created the NICS in 1993. Before that, the only requirement was to fill out a form which stayed with the FFL; there was no background check.

I think you're both missing that it doesn't matter what you think about the importance of the States. The Constitution was created as a union of states. Without the States there is no nation and no government. Only by overthrowing our constitutional government can the states be taken out and us get a national government instead of a federal government.

Only by amending the Constitution can the Electoral College be changed. It doesn't need changed; it was intended specifically for what is happening in our time today, to make sure that all of the states had a voice in electing the president. It was never supposed to be that the people elect the president; the States do it.

The progressives and anti-Americans did two things near the start of the 20th century with the very specific intention of beginning the transformation from union to nation: the 16th Amendment allowed the Federal Government to tax the people directly and to play states against each other by ending apportionment. Next, they convinced the States to give up their own representation in Washington, D.C. by making Senators elected by the people in the State rather than appointed by whatever other means the individual states chose.

If we strip the States of their voice in electing the president, then the American experiment is done; we'd be like every other government in the world, where national government controls anything and everything it wishes and the people are subjects, not free men.

 

[woodwork201]

Give one good reason why I should register my guns.

Because you live in a society where there are rules that people should obey in order for society to function.

Well, there's no such rule today so you're suggesting that we create a rule for which the sole purpose of its existence is to make people obey it. Well, that's as good a reason as I've heard from anyone on the left.

Yeah, imagine you take something someone says, twist it and then attack the twisted version.

No point in me even commenting, I should just let you argue with the left wing personality you just invented.

Have fun with that.

It's exactly what you said: the reason for registering guns is that it's the rule.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Give one good reason why I should register my guns.

Because you live in a society where there are rules that people should obey in order for society to function.

Well, there's no such rule today so you're suggesting that we create a rule for which the sole purpose of its existence is to make people obey it. Well, that's as good a reason as I've heard from anyone on the left.

Yeah, imagine you take something someone says, twist it and then attack the twisted version.

No point in me even commenting, I should just let you argue with the left wing personality you just invented.

Have fun with that.

It's exactly what you said: the reason for registering guns is that it's the rule.

Not at all.

There are plenty of places in the US where you have to register guns.

Firearm registration requirements by state

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

" As of January 1, 2019, seven states and the District of Columbia required individuals to register their ownership of certain firearms with local law enforcement agencies."

 

[Utilitarian]

If I don't need an ID to vote, which is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right why do I need an ID to purchase a firearm, which is a Constitutionally guaranteed right?

All this BS about the Constitution.
The Constitution is outdated, that is why we have so many amendments.
The Founding Fathers were correct in every aspect? Hell NO. Thus amendments.
You clowns cling to the 2nd as if it is holy. It needs an update, thus an amendment.

Should legal citizens have the right to own a firearm. Absolutely.
No one is coming to take guns away.

Why are you afraid of registering your car? You are NOT.
Why are you afraid of registering your boat? You are NOT.
Why are you afraid of having legal title (Deed) to your property? You are NOT.

With all this, why are you afraid to register guns?

In several nations where guns were registered, they did in fact take them away. This is what happened in Australia and the UK, for example.

And while it is true that the 2nd Amendment would make this more difficult for this government to do that, the current Court precedent only protects ownership of handguns, so technically, the ATF could be used to seize all rifles. That would be substantially easier to do if all rifles are registered.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Well, "providing for the discharge" seems to be interpreted in a wide variety of ways, as shown by the wildly different policies between states and politicians.

 

[Utilitarian]

With all this, why are you afraid to register guns?

Give one good reason why I should register my guns.

Because you live in a society where there are rules that people should obey in order for society to function.

That logic can be used to justify just about any law.

Only illegals have a problem being legal to the law.

There was a time when slavery was legal. There was a time when racial segregation was mandated by the state.

Just because something is enshrined in law doesn't make it morally right.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Last time I check both are constitutional rights. However, I never hear leftists complaining about ID/background check to buy a gun from licensed gun dealers.

The thread premise is a lie and fails as a strawman fallacy.

Liberals have no issue with requiring citizens to provide ID when registering to vote.

Once registered and current on the voting rolls, there’s no good reason to require an ID every time a citizen votes as voter ‘fraud’ by identity theft is so rare as to be virtually non-existent.

Moreover, often ID requirement are such that older voters of color lack the required documentation to obtain the type of ID required.

So by your own standard, once I’ve passed a background check to buy one weapon, I never need to pass another one no matter how many weapons I buy, or even if my mental health or criminal history change.

 

[Utilitarian]

Well, the UK had 32 gun homicides in 2015

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United Kingdom, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development

www.gunpolicy.org

Switzerland had 18.

That's a rate of 0.22 for Switzerland and 0.02 for the UK. Switzerland has a population of 8 million to the UK's 65 million.

Most states get ignored right now. Candidates only look at the swing states.

Europe, in general, has lower homicide rates than us, whether by gun or something else. It has less to do with guns and more to do with demographics.

You'll notice the whitest parts of Europe tend to have the lowest homicide rates in general. It may not be politically correct to say it, but it's true. The same is largely true even in America. But I'm not saying it's a genetic thing. It's a cultural thing.

And Europeans aren't even the least homicidal. Japan has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Their suicide rate is much higher than their homicide rate. Japan also has much stricter gun control than most other countries, but that doesn't seem to keep their suicide rate down.

So, again, culture seems to be the biggest factor overall. Even if we somehow made all guns disappear from America right now, we'd still be killing each other with knives or various other objects just because we have a lot of violent people in general.

Getting back to the electoral stuff, yes, swing states do get more attention than they should. That's why I support ending winner-takes-all. That would end that problem.

 

[Utilitarian]

Guns aren't the problem. They were easy to obtain all the way up until the 60s and 70s. The first major background check system didn't even exist until 1968. Yet, shootings were far less common before 1968 than afterwards.

The problem would seem to largely be mental health. We had a robust public mental health system up until the late 60s. When that got dismantled, a lot of unstable people entered open society. We also had a lot more homeless people. Bringing back a public mental health system would greatly reduce a lot of violence and homelessness.

States are very much important. Yes, the urban-rural divide is more stark than state divides in some respects, but the decentralization of government allows people to decide their fate. If you want to live in a very liberal place, you can move to a state like Massachusetts. If you want to live in a very conservative place, you can move to Wyoming. Decentralization allows people to pursue their preferences. Centralization would eliminate that, and then the entire system would just be about dominating the federal leadership. Lobbyists would have way more power under that arrangement than they already do.

Which major background check system existed in 1968? The Brady Bill created the NICS in 1993. Before that, the only requirement was to fill out a form which stayed with the FFL; there was no background check.

I think you're both missing that it doesn't matter what you think about the importance of the States. The Constitution was created as a union of states. Without the States there is no nation and no government. Only by overthrowing our constitutional government can the states be taken out and us get a national government instead of a federal government.

Only by amending the Constitution can the Electoral College be changed. It doesn't need changed; it was intended specifically for what is happening in our time today, to make sure that all of the states had a voice in electing the president. It was never supposed to be that the people elect the president; the States do it.

The progressives and anti-Americans did two things near the start of the 20th century with the very specific intention of beginning the transformation from union to nation: the 16th Amendment allowed the Federal Government to tax the people directly and to play states against each other by ending apportionment. Next, they convinced the States to give up their own representation in Washington, D.C. by making Senators elected by the people in the State rather than appointed by whatever other means the individual states chose.

If we strip the States of their voice in electing the president, then the American experiment is done; we'd be like every other government in the world, where national government controls anything and everything it wishes and the people are subjects, not free men.

Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The above mentioned law wasn't like a modern background check, but it did prohibit sales of firearms to certain individuals. It was essentially the antecedent to later gun control measures.

But yeah, I generally agree with what you're saying here.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the UK had 32 gun homicides in 2015

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United Kingdom, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development

www.gunpolicy.org

Switzerland had 18.

That's a rate of 0.22 for Switzerland and 0.02 for the UK. Switzerland has a population of 8 million to the UK's 65 million.

Most states get ignored right now. Candidates only look at the swing states.

Europe, in general, has lower homicide rates than us, whether by gun or something else. It has less to do with guns and more to do with demographics.

You'll notice the whitest parts of Europe tend to have the lowest homicide rates in general. It may not be politically correct to say it, but it's true. The same is largely true even in America. But I'm not saying it's a genetic thing. It's a cultural thing.

And Europeans aren't even the least homicidal. Japan has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Their suicide rate is much higher than their homicide rate. Japan also has much stricter gun control than most other countries, but that doesn't seem to keep their suicide rate down.

So, again, culture seems to be the biggest factor overall. Even if we somehow made all guns disappear from America right now, we'd still be killing each other with knives or various other objects just because we have a lot of violent people in general.

Getting back to the electoral stuff, yes, swing states do get more attention than they should. That's why I support ending winner-takes-all. That would end that problem.

No, the whole demographics argument is a fallacy designed to explain away a problem without having to confront the problem.

Yes, there's a certain amount of culture in this. Black Africans in the UK have a similar educational achievement to white British people. Black Caribbeans on the other hand have a much lower educational achievement than anyone else (except Gypsies and travellers for what seems to be obvious reasons, a lack of educational stability).

This then means that more of the crime is being committed by these Black Caribbeans, rather than anyone else.

In the US there's a history of slavery, segregation, migration to cities to do menial jobs and being stuck in poor inner city neighborhoods. Another cultural thing in the US is educational funding. In the UK and most of Europe education is funded more or less equally. In the US it's based on property taxes, which furthers the poor/rich divide.

Another cultural thing is the saying in the US "anyone can make it in the US", which is technically true. The problem is not everyone can make it, only a few can rise up out of the ghettos.

Another thing is US society is WHITE. Meaning black people are growing up in a society which isn't made for them. It's made for white people. Which has an impact. How much it's difficult to say, but certainly different races have different positive attributes that can be utilized by society, or ignored.

However I'd point to the UK to say the issue in the US is one of political laziness. The simple saying of things like "anyone in the US can make it" as a way of not improving things, or even making sure people don't succeed to benefit those who have that power.

In the UK there was a massive rise in gun crime in the early 2000s. This was mostly because of the Yardies, Jamaican gangs. Jamaicans could get into the UK visa free and did, and stayed and brought their gangs with them. (and in return the UK got to decide who had the death penalty in Jamaica, hardly seems fair).

But the UK government did something about it. They targeted this crime, and they reduced it.

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United Kingdom, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development

www.gunpolicy.org

234 gun deaths in 2000 was a high. 107 in 2016.

Yes, it doesn't stop all violence, knife crime has become more prominent, but it was an active push to stop society rotting away (from this one aspect at least)

 

[Utilitarian]

No, the whole demographics argument is a fallacy designed to explain away a problem without having to confront the problem.

Yes, there's a certain amount of culture in this. Black Africans in the UK have a similar educational achievement to white British people. Black Caribbeans on the other hand have a much lower educational achievement than anyone else (except Gypsies and travellers for what seems to be obvious reasons, a lack of educational stability).

This then means that more of the crime is being committed by these Black Caribbeans, rather than anyone else.

In the US there's a history of slavery, segregation, migration to cities to do menial jobs and being stuck in poor inner city neighborhoods. Another cultural thing in the US is educational funding. In the UK and most of Europe education is funded more or less equally. In the US it's based on property taxes, which furthers the poor/rich divide.

While education funding is based on things like the taxes you mention, there is no proven correlation between education results and spending. A lot of the time, you get better results out of charter schools that spend far less per student than public schools.

It's not about funding so much as it is about how money is spent. Many public systems are just terribly run.

Another cultural thing is the saying in the US "anyone can make it in the US", which is technically true. The problem is not everyone can make it, only a few can rise up out of the ghettos.

Another thing is US society is WHITE. Meaning black people are growing up in a society which isn't made for them. It's made for white people. Which has an impact. How much it's difficult to say, but certainly different races have different positive attributes that can be utilized by society, or ignored.

Sure, but that's true of any society and its majority. Japanese society is made for the Japanese. They do better than the Ainu, for example.

People always talk about white privilege, but it's really about majority privilege. When we cease to have a majority, things might change somewhat, although it's going to be pretty chaotic until a new majority takes hold. Latinos will be the eventual new majority, and by that point in time, they will probably fare best in America.

You can't change this principle through legislation. It's just human nature. Whoever is the majority will usually rule and succeed.

There are exceptions to this in certain societies, but they usually involve vast differences in wealth and resources between groups -- far more vast than any differences here.

However I'd point to the UK to say the issue in the US is one of political laziness. The simple saying of things like "anyone in the US can make it" as a way of not improving things, or even making sure people don't succeed to benefit those who have that power.

In the UK there was a massive rise in gun crime in the early 2000s. This was mostly because of the Yardies, Jamaican gangs. Jamaicans could get into the UK visa free and did, and stayed and brought their gangs with them. (and in return the UK got to decide who had the death penalty in Jamaica, hardly seems fair).

But the UK government did something about it. They targeted this crime, and they reduced it.

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United Kingdom, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development

www.gunpolicy.org

234 gun deaths in 2000 was a high. 107 in 2016.

Yes, it doesn't stop all violence, knife crime has become more prominent, but it was an active push to stop society rotting away (from this one aspect at least)

See, that's the strange thing about that approach. Instead of restricting Caribbean immigration more, they decided to just be more restrictive about weapons. Yet, the weapons themselves weren't the problem. The people using those weapons were.

Granted, reading between the lines reveals that it's not really about safety. It's about government control. Elites running the government don't care about immigration issues, because they live in gated enclaves that are away from the repercussions of said immigration. They also don't care about gun rights, because they can afford to hire security.

And disarming the public makes them far easier to control.

 

[366h34d]

With all this, why are you afraid to register guns?

Give one good reason why I should register my guns.

Because you live in a society where there are rules that people should obey in order for society to function.

Then, the first question will be who makes the rules? You

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Last time I check both are constitutional rights. However, I never hear leftists complaining about ID/background check to buy a gun from licensed gun dealers.

The thread premise is a lie and fails as a strawman fallacy.

Liberals have no issue with requiring citizens to provide ID when registering to vote.

Once registered and current on the voting rolls, there’s no good reason to require an ID every time a citizen votes as voter ‘fraud’ by identity theft is so rare as to be virtually non-existent.

Moreover, often ID requirement are such that older voters of color lack the required documentation to obtain the type of ID required.

Liar the only id required is a state id which is required for numerous other functions everyone must do

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, the whole demographics argument is a fallacy designed to explain away a problem without having to confront the problem.

Yes, there's a certain amount of culture in this. Black Africans in the UK have a similar educational achievement to white British people. Black Caribbeans on the other hand have a much lower educational achievement than anyone else (except Gypsies and travellers for what seems to be obvious reasons, a lack of educational stability).

This then means that more of the crime is being committed by these Black Caribbeans, rather than anyone else.

In the US there's a history of slavery, segregation, migration to cities to do menial jobs and being stuck in poor inner city neighborhoods. Another cultural thing in the US is educational funding. In the UK and most of Europe education is funded more or less equally. In the US it's based on property taxes, which furthers the poor/rich divide.

While education funding is based on things like the taxes you mention, there is no proven correlation between education results and spending. A lot of the time, you get better results out of charter schools that spend far less per student than public schools.

It's not about funding so much as it is about how money is spent. Many public systems are just terribly run.

Another cultural thing is the saying in the US "anyone can make it in the US", which is technically true. The problem is not everyone can make it, only a few can rise up out of the ghettos.

Another thing is US society is WHITE. Meaning black people are growing up in a society which isn't made for them. It's made for white people. Which has an impact. How much it's difficult to say, but certainly different races have different positive attributes that can be utilized by society, or ignored.

Sure, but that's true of any society and its majority. Japanese society is made for the Japanese. They do better than the Ainu, for example.

People always talk about white privilege, but it's really about majority privilege. When we cease to have a majority, things might change somewhat, although it's going to be pretty chaotic until a new majority takes hold. Latinos will be the eventual new majority, and by that point in time, they will probably fare best in America.

You can't change this principle through legislation. It's just human nature. Whoever is the majority will usually rule and succeed.

There are exceptions to this in certain societies, but they usually involve vast differences in wealth and resources between groups -- far more vast than any differences here.

However I'd point to the UK to say the issue in the US is one of political laziness. The simple saying of things like "anyone in the US can make it" as a way of not improving things, or even making sure people don't succeed to benefit those who have that power.

In the UK there was a massive rise in gun crime in the early 2000s. This was mostly because of the Yardies, Jamaican gangs. Jamaicans could get into the UK visa free and did, and stayed and brought their gangs with them. (and in return the UK got to decide who had the death penalty in Jamaica, hardly seems fair).

But the UK government did something about it. They targeted this crime, and they reduced it.

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United Kingdom, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development

www.gunpolicy.org

234 gun deaths in 2000 was a high. 107 in 2016.

Yes, it doesn't stop all violence, knife crime has become more prominent, but it was an active push to stop society rotting away (from this one aspect at least)

See, that's the strange thing about that approach. Instead of restricting Caribbean immigration more, they decided to just be more restrictive about weapons. Yet, the weapons themselves weren't the problem. The people using those weapons were.

Granted, reading between the lines reveals that it's not really about safety. It's about government control. Elites running the government don't care about immigration issues, because they live in gated enclaves that are away from the repercussions of said immigration. They also don't care about gun rights, because they can afford to hire security.

And disarming the public makes them far easier to control.

No, there isn't a correlation between spending and educational results.

If you look at things superficially then you'll get a superficial answer. Yes, education spending needs to be directed in a proper manner. If you have schools in inner city areas with kids who have no hope in life, who have violence all around them, problems at home etc etc, then no, education spending might not help these kids if you've got teachers who can't teach.

Spending, if done INTELLIGENTLY, can work. In the UK education is done far better than it is in most of the US.

If you sort out society, give kids that hope that they'll be equal if they do well in education, give them the right skills, give them opportunities if their family life is breaking down. In London in the build up to the Olympic games there was a lot of sports going on, this helped reduce crime, helped build these kids up.

This is one of the problems with the US.

Every discussion (decent discussion), ends up at how people vote. Because Proportional Representation reduces corruption, forces politicians to give people what they want. FPTP gives the politicians what they want and allows people to buy them off easily.

Change the way people vote and you'll change the attitude in the US.

People are like "we don't trust our governments" but then won't do anything about changing this. An attitude of "it doesn't matter how we vote" is leading to a country that is falling apart.

This falling apart is most obvious in the inner city areas, and it impacts education, leads to generations bringing up future generations badly and without any care because "it doesn't matter".

The whole BLM is about this. It's about a massive lack of hope that is destroying these people's lives. While right wing white people are like "black people are violent", but really it's a society's problems.


Well, I'd say the weapons are a problem as much as the people. The weapons turn an individual into an efficient killing machine individual.

So you end up with an individual who is MORE of a problem.

Disarming the population does make them easier to control. HOWEVER, the people in the US are easier to control because of FPTP, than the people of Germany are who have PR. Because the people in Germany have POWER that isn't just about killing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

With all this, why are you afraid to register guns?

Give one good reason why I should register my guns.

Because you live in a society where there are rules that people should obey in order for society to function.

Then, the first question will be who makes the rules? You

Yes, it is the first question.

Who makes the rules?

Well, with Proportional Representation the people make the rules. I'd have just as much as say as everyone else.

In the US, FPTP leads to the rich making the rules.

 

[Utilitarian]

No, there isn't a correlation between spending and educational results.

If you look at things superficially then you'll get a superficial answer. Yes, education spending needs to be directed in a proper manner. If you have schools in inner city areas with kids who have no hope in life, who have violence all around them, problems at home etc etc, then no, education spending might not help these kids if you've got teachers who can't teach.

Spending, if done INTELLIGENTLY, can work. In the UK education is done far better than it is in most of the US.

If you sort out society, give kids that hope that they'll be equal if they do well in education, give them the right skills, give them opportunities if their family life is breaking down. In London in the build up to the Olympic games there was a lot of sports going on, this helped reduce crime, helped build these kids up.

This is one of the problems with the US.

Every discussion (decent discussion), ends up at how people vote. Because Proportional Representation reduces corruption, forces politicians to give people what they want. FPTP gives the politicians what they want and allows people to buy them off easily.

Change the way people vote and you'll change the attitude in the US.

People are like "we don't trust our governments" but then won't do anything about changing this. An attitude of "it doesn't matter how we vote" is leading to a country that is falling apart.

This falling apart is most obvious in the inner city areas, and it impacts education, leads to generations bringing up future generations badly and without any care because "it doesn't matter".

The whole BLM is about this. It's about a massive lack of hope that is destroying these people's lives. While right wing white people are like "black people are violent", but really it's a society's problems.


Well, I'd say the weapons are a problem as much as the people. The weapons turn an individual into an efficient killing machine individual.

So you end up with an individual who is MORE of a problem.

Disarming the population does make them easier to control. HOWEVER, the people in the US are easier to control because of FPTP, than the people of Germany are who have PR. Because the people in Germany have POWER that isn't just about killing.

We may disagree on the solutions to our problems, but at least we agree that having a different voting system would be preferable.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, there isn't a correlation between spending and educational results.

If you look at things superficially then you'll get a superficial answer. Yes, education spending needs to be directed in a proper manner. If you have schools in inner city areas with kids who have no hope in life, who have violence all around them, problems at home etc etc, then no, education spending might not help these kids if you've got teachers who can't teach.

Spending, if done INTELLIGENTLY, can work. In the UK education is done far better than it is in most of the US.

If you sort out society, give kids that hope that they'll be equal if they do well in education, give them the right skills, give them opportunities if their family life is breaking down. In London in the build up to the Olympic games there was a lot of sports going on, this helped reduce crime, helped build these kids up.

This is one of the problems with the US.

Every discussion (decent discussion), ends up at how people vote. Because Proportional Representation reduces corruption, forces politicians to give people what they want. FPTP gives the politicians what they want and allows people to buy them off easily.

Change the way people vote and you'll change the attitude in the US.

People are like "we don't trust our governments" but then won't do anything about changing this. An attitude of "it doesn't matter how we vote" is leading to a country that is falling apart.

This falling apart is most obvious in the inner city areas, and it impacts education, leads to generations bringing up future generations badly and without any care because "it doesn't matter".

The whole BLM is about this. It's about a massive lack of hope that is destroying these people's lives. While right wing white people are like "black people are violent", but really it's a society's problems.


Well, I'd say the weapons are a problem as much as the people. The weapons turn an individual into an efficient killing machine individual.

So you end up with an individual who is MORE of a problem.

Disarming the population does make them easier to control. HOWEVER, the people in the US are easier to control because of FPTP, than the people of Germany are who have PR. Because the people in Germany have POWER that isn't just about killing.

We may disagree on the solutions to our problems, but at least we agree that having a different voting system would be preferable.

Yes, it is the only way to have any other changes. And the changes would be profound. But it'll never happen because the powers that be, like being the powers that be.

 

[366h34d]

With all this, why are you afraid to register guns?

Give one good reason why I should register my guns.

Because you live in a society where there are rules that people should obey in order for society to function.

Then, the first question will be who makes the rules? You

Yes, it is the first question.

Who makes the rules?

Well, with Proportional Representation the people make the rules. I'd have just as much as say as everyone else.

In the US, FPTP leads to the rich making the rules.

We are running a cycle now. So, Is Georgia's Voter Law a Jim Crow 2.0? PTOUS said it was. The last time I checked, Georgia voters voted Biden.

 

[woodwork201]

Not at all.

There are plenty of places in the US where you have to register guns.

Firearm registration requirements by state

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

" As of January 1, 2019, seven states and the District of Columbia required individuals to register their ownership of certain firearms with local law enforcement agencies."

Other than compliance with the rule to register guns, what is the purpose of the rule? And don't say to know who has guns; why do they want to know who has guns?

 

[woodwork201]

Getting back to the electoral stuff, yes, swing states do get more attention than they should. That's why I support ending winner-takes-all. That would end that problem.

So you want to undo the United States as we know it; you just want to undo it differently from the left?