Ron Paul

[Sam_Zen]

... Making interpretations that suits them personally well. =
That is actually how everyone acts in any given circumstances.

Yep, but fortunelately not exactly everyone, so count me out as a follower of whatever Ron.

[uncloned]

I'm interested in people with love, compassion, dignity and who are practising freedom of thought.

well.... that eliminates practically any career politician....  

[uncloned]

personally I liked Ron Paul

why?

because the two "major" parties have done America a tremendous disservice. basically both parties have put America into a financially precarious situation that will destroy people's lives or the country or both.

republicans and democrats spent the social security funds when they should have not. the fund would be solvent had not congress borrowed against it to finance their spending and the spending of the executive branch.

Ron Paul represented to me true change - not perfection but a realism in monetary and fiscal policy. I disagree with the notion that he merely negated every idea out there. What he promoted was a true sea change in the way Washington is financed with the revolutionary idea of spending only the money you have.

I did not agree with all of his positions - but my and large he represented a real difference. Much more than even Obama.


In my book Obama = McCain= Bush=Clinton=Bush much more than Paul equals any of them.

Unfortunately America can't seem to get out of the stranglehold of a moribund two party system.

[g]

Surely that clip was just part of the reality.

Here's another part of reality.

[Louigi Verona]

Surely that clip was just part of the reality.

Here's another part of reality.

It is part of reality. Depends on what conclusions you draw from that. A short-term conclusion would just be to not think this over and simply ban weapons. Simple.
If you take time to think, though, you would see that shooting a trespasser is being very aggressive. Not a lot of people would behave that way. Before you shoot, you have to warn: "I have a gun - get out". Just shooting silently at someone who set foot into your backyard is inadequate.

So the problem is not in the weapon. The problem is in how people use the weapon. And most people will NOT use the weapon that way. Banning weapons because two idiots shot someone is outright stupid. Besides, these things happen. And they will happen anyway. If those people wouldn't have had a gun, they would've ran those trespassers over in a car - believe me, if one is an idiot, it will manifest itself somehow.

But if you ban weapons - normal citizens will not have weapons. Criminals, however, will have weapons anyway - whether it is allowed or not. So if you ban weapons - people don't have the defence and criminals will be 100% sure you have nothing to defend yourself - not even a knife.

[g]

Criminals, however, will have weapons anyway - whether it is allowed or not. So if you ban weapons - people don't have the defence and criminals will be 100% sure you have nothing to defend yourself - not even a knife.

Most criminals have weapons because they're readily available. And no, I don't think those people would have gotten the car and run the kid over instead. Guns make it too easy to kill another person, all you need is a split second of losing control and the person at the other side of the gun is dead. Stabbing someone to death takes a lot more effort. And why would banning guns mean that people have no knives at home? Will we not eat meat or slice bread without guns?

Of course it's not as easy as banning all guns and they will magically disappear, but you have to start somewhere. Anyway, I assure you I have taken time to think about this, and my conclusion is obviously different from yours and Ron's.

[Louigi Verona]

Most criminals have weapons because they're readily available.

This is the weak point of your reasoning, in my opinion.

[g]

Most criminals have weapons because they're readily available.

This is the weak point of your reasoning, in my opinion.

Why? Are you suggesting criminals have weapons factories?

[Louigi Verona]

I am suggesting that criminals can get weapons relatively easily, yes. If they really need a weapon - they can get it. And not only they can get a gun, they can get a knife, which in some states people are not allowed to carry on their person - which in reality means that normal citizens won't have knives while criminals of course will.

If by "available" you mean available in question - produced - and by making weapons readily unavailable you mean not making weapons at all, then I believe that it is simply not realistic.

p.s.: and btw, yes, there are illegal weapon factories all over the world which supply lots of countries with unregistered guns and rifles and whatnot.

[Sam_Zen]

Anything can be used as a weapon, a car, a knife, a hammer, while they are not meant to be.
A gun is designed to be a weapon, that's a difference. And as g states, very easy to use.

In cultures where having guns is normal (good for the economy), it's often the excuse, that it's for defensive purposes.
Strictly spoken, this can't be. As soon as one would fire back in an attack, it's an offensive act as well.

Where to start ? First a ban on cowardly weapons like landmines, air bombing, and hunting deer with leaden hail.

[uncloned]

IMHO a better start would be making a world in which there was little if anything to fight for.

[Louigi Verona]

Yes, something like that. I do honestly believe that banning weapons is not a solution. But I also have noticed that people that oppose this said nothing about my "criminal"-"normal citizen" argument.

[Sam_Zen]

Maybe because it's a bit of a chicken/egg argument. If it wasn't so easy to get a license, or buy a gun anyway,
there wouldn't be so much criminals. And under circumstances any "normal" citizen can turn into a criminal.
See 'Going down' with Michael Douglas.

[Louigi Verona]

And under circumstances any "normal" citizen can turn into a criminal.

Well this is true only with the "under circumstances". Those circumstances have to be very-very specific. All in all, I cannot agree that there are many criminals because the weapons are readily available - it's not the weapon that makes a criminal, it's the mind, the values of a human being. I do not believe this to be a chicken-egg argument at all - the egg is the person. The gun is the chicken. If a person is a criminal, it is not because he has a knife in his pocket.

[Rxn]

And under circumstances any "normal" citizen can turn into a criminal.

Right to the point.