Why isn't every other country in the world trying to copy the US ?

[Martin Hash]

The matter comes down to whether government serves the people or whether the people serve the government. If gun ownership is a "privilege", then the people are subjects of a government. If the government is but an instrument of the people, then it can in no way rightly abridge their right to bear arms.

I'd say America has regressed a long ways towards tyranny over the centuries, but to "fall in step" with the overtly tyrannical governments of the world, such as that of Britain, would necessitate our abolishing and altering *our* government.


The British cannot say the government of the UK is "their" government, only that the British people are the property of the UK government. This government routinely treats them like slaves. They are literally property of that government.

Nice.

[Martin Hash]

It always comes back to resentment.

Those who excel from liberty do not wish to force their values on others, but the reverse is not true. This is a fact and no amount of moralizing from The Patriarchy will change it. Democracy requires the resenters to be a minority. That is why Winners need to make sure that some amount of Losers think they are winners, or the majority Losers will vote against liberty.

p.s. This is why there are so many people who promote limited enfranchisement. They would rather the Losers not vote rather than give up one coin from their pile of gold.

[Speaker to Animals]

Has more to do with the moral hazard of creating incentives to vote for things one doesn't have to pay the costs for.

The problem with the military aside (which will be the thing that finally ends republican democracy in America, btw), most of the economic dysfunction we have today is a product of this alliance between the ultra-wealthy and the ultra-poor and practiced by most of the democrat and republican politicians today. We have an economic system of socialism for the rich and the very poor, and everybody in between those two groups is totally fucked. The more poor people they can create through globalist economic policies and mass migration of useless proles from the non-white world, the more power they can entrench against the middle class.

The wealthy get away with it because they basically promise free shit to the very poor paid for mostly by the middle class one way or another when you look at the costs in terms of percentage of income and wealth. The poor voted democrat because they don't have to pay for any of this shit. The shining example of this is the millions of illegals who pay no taxes, get good jobs under the table, but then get to steal money from the Americans they stole jobs from via welfare, education, health care, WIC, etc. I go to mass every week. LOTS of these people are driving around in very nice trucks. They have nice stuff. But they all get welfare. Meanwhile you have American citizens struggling to get by because they can't compete against people for whom employers pay no taxes. The democrats want to solidify this power by giving illegals the right to vote in states like California.

When democracy reaches this point, it's really just gang rape, dude.

When you advocate for taxing the shit out of the rich, you are doing this from a place of your conviction and principles. But what exactly do you think when you see all these millennials in brand-name clothes, and sporting eight hundred dollar smartphones, talking about how "we" need to make the rich pay most of their income because they are so dirt-poor?

[Speaker to Animals]

Look at the female vote as the prime example of democracy gone off the fucking rails.

Women as a group do not pay more taxes in a single lifetime than they receive in benefits.

Women as a group do not choose to serve, or even have to serve, in the armed forces, and when war comes, there exist so many outs for them that actual combat duty is a choice for them.

Yet women are more than half the electorate.

Women vote for more shit for themselves. They vote for politicians that promise them special treatment. They don't do anything that would erase injustices against men if they actually believed gender equality was some noble objective. A majority of them voted for Hillary Clinton precisely because Clinton was a woman who promised them more shit. Meanwhile Clinton was drumming up more wars, even with Russia, after creating the worse humanitarian crisis in almost a century through her illegal wars in North Africa and the Levant.

I do not for a moment believe that most people will vote according to principles when they are not required to pay the costs. Most of the very rich are not going to take your position about tax policies because they will have to pay more money than they need to, politically.

People for the most part vote for what they perceive is their self-interests, not what they believe is right or wrong.

[Martin Hash]

most of the economic dysfunction we have today is a product of this alliance between the ultra-wealthy and the ultra-poor and practiced by most of the democrat and republican politicians today. We have an economic system of socialism for the rich and the very poor, and everybody in between those two groups is totally fucked. The more poor people they can create through globalist economic policies and mass migration of useless proles from the non-white world, the more power they can entrench against the middle class.

The wealthy get away with it because they basically promise free shit to the very poor paid for mostly by the middle class one way or another when you look at the costs in terms of percentage of income and wealth.

I don't think this is true but it deserves to remain on the Explanations board.

[Martin Hash]

Women vote for more shit for themselves. They vote for politicians that promise them special treatment. They don't do anything that would erase injustices against men if they actually believed gender equality was some noble objective. A majority of them voted for Hillary Clinton precisely because Clinton was a woman who promised them more shit. Meanwhile Clinton was drumming up more wars, even with Russia, after creating the worse humanitarian crisis in almost a century through her illegal wars in North Africa and the Levant.

This is certainly true of women in the Democratic Party.

p.s. BTW, my wife isn't a Democrat, she only votes for me, and she's not like that.

[Hastur]

There’s a bell curve for any group of people. It migh vary in shape and position fro:other groups but to say that all members of any demographic group is a certain way is always wrong.

[C-Mag]

most of the economic dysfunction we have today is a product of this alliance between the ultra-wealthy and the ultra-poor and practiced by most of the democrat and republican politicians today. We have an economic system of socialism for the rich and the very poor, and everybody in between those two groups is totally fucked. The more poor people they can create through globalist economic policies and mass migration of useless proles from the non-white world, the more power they can entrench against the middle class.

I group both these as Free-Loaders, and it's become generational in this country. The third generation welfare queen is the same as the third generation Kennedy clan. Neither produce anythign for society, both have a ton of shit to say politically and both are more parasites than anything.

If we consider both to be one group, and get folks thinking that way we could unite both left and right against them................ I would hope

[katarn]

I say how fairly is that wealth distributed?
How come with all that wealth you have such a poorly financed infrastructure. You have crumbling dams, bridges unsafe to use, a third world public transport system.
Where does all that wealth go?
Why do you have 11 massive aircraft carriers, the three biggest military airforces in the world and yet cities like Detroit which have been abandoned by the government, an appalling state school system which cannot even guarantee the safety of its pupils never mind educate them to a reasonable standard?

I won't contest the faults of the state education system, I'm feeling some of them as we type, but saying we can't guarantee the safety of students seems like a bad point to raise. What would you consider to be guaranteeing the safety of students? And how far do whatever those policies are go? Do they protect Bob from Jim with the grudge and the mean right cross? Sure you're more likely to die if you're shot by a lunatic school shooter, but your safety is far more threatened in an American school by the other students you're around on a daily basis. This isn't to say schools are a madhouse of violence and bullying, though it definitely happens, I'm just raising the issue to prompt thought on what it might mean to 'guarantee safety' of students. You say we "cannot even," implying that it should be something we can do relatively easily, but I wonder hw you think it could be done.

Well I would suggest tighter regulations on gun ownership but that's a non starter when you consider ownership a right.
That just leaves increased security at schools. Airport style metal detectors and x-ray machines.
Really you need to ask "why do school shootings continue here when nations like Australia and the UK have eliminated them?"
If the answer is heavy regulations and gun ownership seen as a privilege to be earned not a birthright then maybe you need to fall in step with the other 99% of the nations on Earth.

I'm sure you've been over the particular gun ownership regulations you'd want on here before, but I've been gone for quite a while and don't know which ones you'd advocate. There are quite a few schools that already use metal detectors, especially in the cities. Now that still leaves a lot of opportunity for violence in regular fighting, but it seems thats less of a concern for you. Is that interpretation right?

[Montegriffo]

I won't contest the faults of the state education system, I'm feeling some of them as we type, but saying we can't guarantee the safety of students seems like a bad point to raise. What would you consider to be guaranteeing the safety of students? And how far do whatever those policies are go? Do they protect Bob from Jim with the grudge and the mean right cross? Sure you're more likely to die if you're shot by a lunatic school shooter, but your safety is far more threatened in an American school by the other students you're around on a daily basis. This isn't to say schools are a madhouse of violence and bullying, though it definitely happens, I'm just raising the issue to prompt thought on what it might mean to 'guarantee safety' of students. You say we "cannot even," implying that it should be something we can do relatively easily, but I wonder hw you think it could be done.

Well I would suggest tighter regulations on gun ownership but that's a non starter when you consider ownership a right.
That just leaves increased security at schools. Airport style metal detectors and x-ray machines.
Really you need to ask "why do school shootings continue here when nations like Australia and the UK have eliminated them?"
If the answer is heavy regulations and gun ownership seen as a privilege to be earned not a birthright then maybe you need to fall in step with the other 99% of the nations on Earth.

I'm sure you've been over the particular gun ownership regulations you'd want on here before, but I've been gone for quite a while and don't know which ones you'd advocate. There are quite a few schools that already use metal detectors, especially in the cities. Now that still leaves a lot of opportunity for violence in regular fighting, but it seems thats less of a concern for you. Is that interpretation right?

Are you asking if I'm less concerned about violence without guns than with them?