Discussion in 'Politics' started by Angel_Headed_Hipster, Feb 17, 2009.
If you could change any one thing politically in the world what would it be and why?
I would listen to Plato... eliminate democracy, majority rule just means that if one side gets more idiots to show up than the other side, that group of idiots gets to run things... and instate a philosopher king... me...
I would have stayed in the trees...
It was nicer up there.
We didnt have these nookyuleer cuntraptshuns we have today.
hahaha good one lordhelmet. Like they say "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". I personally still don't know what i would change if i could only change one thing, i'm still thinking about it, but i'm very anxious to hear your guys opinions.
I would like to change our philosophy of government, since I think that is what all other changes spring from.
most politicians believe that large scale corporate/personal welfare and enormous government spending is sustainable. All the policies that promote these misguided ideals put the prosperity of the United States at risk, and always benefit certain individuals at the expense of others.
I'd prosecute private hospitals in Canada since, they are technically unconstitutional and illegal.
The 2nd amendment in the US constitution would be an amendment in every constitution around the world
I'd live to see the ERA ratified. Only need 3 more states.
So every nation would be allowed to maintain a militia? Or should every nation misinterpret it like backwards rednecks in America do, and think that this amendment somehow gives them a right to own fully automatic assault rifles? Guns are made for one sole purpose, and promoting the production and trade of implements of death is ultimately counterproductive to society as a whole...
What happens when the government takes away all your guns, then instates a fascist police state?
Wouldn't that be counter-productive?...
Since when is outlawing the civilian possession of guns an act of liberticide, an assault on the fundamental principle of social order?
I thought you were speaking of love and peace over the acts of war in another thread there, drew boy.
That's a lie, considering the fact most people who own guns use them for sport, and the great deal of that time it's not even hunting sport as it is target shooting. And the militia IS the people, that's the point behind it and now finally the supreme court is finally on that side. There's nothing more terrifying to your own government or a foreign government then a population armed to the teeth. There's over 300 million private registered guns in the United States and all I have to say to that is wooooooooooo! Tell me what is the logic behind letting only the government have guns.
Or the better question to ask would be when hasn't it?
I mean, what tyrant hasn't sought to ban guns before bringing in a totalitarian dictatorship? It's basic history. If you want to oppress mass numbers of people, then you need to eliminate their means of defending themselves. It's common sense.
I doubt your question was serious, though. I am sure you were just joking.
It was serious. Since when does the right to kill someone with a gun constitute a natural right for citizens?
I would legalize marijuana. As well as all psychedelics and outlaw caffeine.
But it's alright for the government to possess guns because the government is 100% benevolent, right?
Who said it's a natural right for someone with a gun to kill citizens? Nobody said that. If a person shoots and kills someone, they go to jail for it... unless they're a cop or in the armed forces, then they can get away with it.
No one anywhere has any right to kill anyone, but people still do it anyways, hence why everyone should be leveled as equals.
Exactly. Nobody has the inherit right to own a gun, nor should they.
Owning a gun doesn't mean you're going to kill people though, people do have the inherit right to self defense.
Using that logic you could just as well say nobody has the inherent right to own knives or drive a car, since they can kill people too.
People have guns and presumably always will, even if guns were to be banned. There will still be people that have them and intend to do harm with them, especially tyrannical governments that seek to ban guns from the general public.
Separate names with a comma.