Guns, Guns Guns

People all over share many characteristics. Then you drill down and progressives all over share many more specific ones, and so do conservatives.
For a long time I've been pondering just what is unique to US hard core conservatives that distinguishes them firstly from everyone else and then specifically from other conservatives.
I now believe the core difference is the absolute belief that you totally respect written guidelines and such that were written centuries or even thousands of years before you were born. Those who fail to grasp that just don't get the US gun and bible culture, just as those in that culture believe everyone else is wrong.
Now that I've got that into my thick skull I'll try to avoid upsetting people to no purpose as you'll never change and neither will we.
I do suggest though that you consider the many other cultures that don't have that aspect and agree that they are surviving quite well (with no tyranny) without it.

Without it (or your cast iron constitution and bill of rights), you would still be Americans, just not that particular subset of god fearing, gun loving ones.

I can't resist having a dig at MAD-4A's assertion that the Democrats are communists. Everyone else in the world regards them as slightly right of centre.

What is an American, Daryl? It is not a race. A German friend asserts we have no nationality. Are we simply people born within a boundary? No, because native Americans can choose not to be Americans.

We are defined by our allegiance to the Constitution either explicitly through oaths or tacitly by accepting the citizenship we are born to. You poke fun at MAD-4A, but his concerns are not without just cause. I believe Bono has it right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg3Xzh2cXD8

That's just it. An Australian would never say they were defined by their allegiance to our constitution. We would say that we were defined by holding citizenship either through being born here (me) or naturalised (my wife). If prodded we would sort of go "Aw shucks, well of course we have allegiance to the country" in an embarrassed tone. There is much debate about what it means to hold Australian values with "A fair go for everyone" at the top, and other egalitarian sentiments following.
I doubt that one in a hundred Australians (conservative or progressive) could name the writers of our constitution or even our first few PMs. Not important to us, however our soldiers have a reputation of being some of the bravest and most capable around, so we are patriotic just not openly.

PeterZ wrote:What is an American, Daryl? It is not a race. A German friend asserts we have no nationality. Are we simply people born within a boundary? No, because native Americans can choose not to be Americans.

We are defined by our allegiance to the Constitution either explicitly through oaths or tacitly by accepting the citizenship we are born to. You poke fun at MAD-4A, but his concerns are not without just cause.

smr wrote:Allright The E, just look to your own present history with the Nazis and see how they usurped the German Republic and the Constitution and laws. This nonsense about the living Constitution is a bunch of balderdash!

If your only argument is "The Nazis did it!", you have no argument.

A gun has never killed another human being. It's the human being pulling the trigger that makes the decision.

And the fact that dozens of people each day make that decision doesn't bother you?

To be a nitpicker, guns do kill people. A great uncle of mine was killed by a gun that went off accidentally due to being dropped and having a faulty trigger mechanism.
As stated many times there are many guns that are capable of killing people, but the proponents of gun control focus on those weapons that are specifically designed to kill people as their primary reason for being.

Sounds like we take the rights and responsibilities attendant with our sovereignty more seriously than you do. Both on the left and the right take who we believe we are seriously. That vision differs just as the vision of who we should become in an optimal future differs. Yet for both American conservatives and leftists, we believe we are defined by ideas more than other traditional definitions of nationality.

Daryl wrote:That's just it. An Australian would never say they were defined by their allegiance to our constitution. We would say that we were defined by holding citizenship either through being born here (me) or naturalised (my wife). If prodded we would sort of go "Aw shucks, well of course we have allegiance to the country" in an embarrassed tone. There is much debate about what it means to hold Australian values with "A fair go for everyone" at the top, and other egalitarian sentiments following.
I doubt that one in a hundred Australians (conservative or progressive) could name the writers of our constitution or even our first few PMs. Not important to us, however our soldiers have a reputation of being some of the bravest and most capable around, so we are patriotic just not openly.

PeterZ wrote:What is an American, Daryl? It is not a race. A German friend asserts we have no nationality. Are we simply people born within a boundary? No, because native Americans can choose not to be Americans.

We are defined by our allegiance to the Constitution either explicitly through oaths or tacitly by accepting the citizenship we are born to. You poke fun at MAD-4A, but his concerns are not without just cause.

PeterZ wrote:Sounds like we take the rights and responsibilities attendant with our sovereignty more seriously than you do.

No, I think rather Americans just have an odd (speaking in the context of it being an outlier globally) tendency to assign far more importance to things like their "sovereignty" and nationality as a source or foundation of those rights and responsibilities where the citizens of most other countries simply see those rights and responsibilities as a natural part of being a human being and a good member of any society regardless of which geographic region of the planet they happen to be a citizen of at the moment.

I'd wager any given Austrian would take their rights and responsibilities AT LEAST as seriously as any American, they just don't tie that to a bunch of flag waving or near-worship of their nations founders or things of that nature.

Could be. Although I know an Italian from the Tyrol region that identifies with her Austrian heritage rather than her Italian nationality. She even sounds more like Ahhrnold than Don Corleone.

I was just remarking on Daryl's comments on his fellow Australians. I haven't a clue if his depiction of them is accurate or not.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Sounds like we take the rights and responsibilities attendant with our sovereignty more seriously than you do.

No, I think rather Americans just have an odd (speaking in the context of it being an outlier globally) tendency to assign far more importance to things like their "sovereignty" and nationality as a source or foundation of those rights and responsibilities where the citizens of most other countries simply see those rights and responsibilities as a natural part of being a human being and a good member of any society regardless of which geographic region of the planet they happen to be a citizen of at the moment.

I'd wager any given Austrian would take their rights and responsibilities AT LEAST as seriously as any American, they just don't tie that to a bunch of flag waving or near-worship of their nations founders or things of that nature.

Perhaps at least some of the difference can be traced back to foundational circumstances?

America is a nation birthed in revolution/rebellion, while Australia and the other former dominions had less acrimonious paths to nationhood.

These anti-gun politicians are attempting to use the deadliest ISlamic terror attack since 9/11 to push for background check laws, even though the terrorist repeatedly passed background checks, include checks for a Florida weapons permit and two separate FBI NICS background checks as recently as last week.

From:
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06/14 ... sletterad=

There are background checks now. If you were caught in a terrorist attack, would you rather be in a "gun free" zone, or a concealed carry allowed zone? What I don't understand is why no one tried a physical counterattack with the range so close. Even if it failed, it could have soaked up a bullet that would have been meant for someone else. Wasn't there a train incident in France where three unarmed men took down an armed terrorist? Does anyone remember the details on that?

Wasn't one definition of insanity given as: doing the same thing while expecting different results