oslooskar

The Second Amendment makes perfect sense. It keeps Uncle Sam from becoming BIG BROTHER.

Australia has never been a fully socialist country, but it has implemented various policies and systems that are associated with socialism. However, even during those times, the country maintained a capitalist economy with private property and market-driven principles. So, while Australia has adopted some socialist policies, it has remained a fundamentally capitalist country.

Obama is credited with stabilizing and reviving the economy after the Great Recession, while Trump is credited with continuing the economic expansion and implementing policies that further boosted growth in the short term. However, the narrative that Trump took credit for Obama's achievements is often debated, with each side attributing the successes and failures to their respective policies.

Let me guess, you're waiting to ambush me with Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and James Risen, right?

Pay attention! I already clarified that in a previous comment. Also, be advised that the United States is NOT a democracy and was never intended to be, it is a Constitutional Republic with a Bill of Rights. The U.S. Constitution includes various protections for minority rights, ensuring that the majority cannot easily infringe upon the rights of individuals or minority groups. This is a key difference from a pure democracy, where majority rule could potentially override individual rights. Bottom-line, the governments of Western democracies have a history of going after those who criticize them.

Actually, it's Douglas Murray.

Right! And that is why we still have freedom of speech and the press, unlike our Canadian neighbors to the north and our British cousins across the Atlantic. In fact, the Canadian government is going after Jordan Peterson right now in an attempt to silence him, just as the British government is going after Douglas Murray to silence him.

Don't be ridiculous, nobody anywhere has the right to incite others to engage in criminal acts. That being said, the police in the United States aren't going to be knocking on your front door because you made a comment on Facebook that caused someone anxiety. Regarding Musk, he can only restrict speech or the press on his private property, not on public property. Take this forum, if it was funded by the U.S. taxpayers then its censors would be more limited in what they could do. However, it is privately owned so they can make the rules. Anyway, right now the British government is going after those who publicly express criticism of its immigration policies, which the majority of the British public are against.

You mean help the government exert greater control over the citizenry, NO THANKS! Americans do have guns, but unlike their British cousins across the pond they still have freedom of speech, and the press, and the right to express their opinions freely on the Internet without any fear of being arrested.

"Trump Folds" More than 2000 years ago Julius Caesar said, "Men tend to believe what is convenient."

Good for you! I carried a .38 caliber revolver for a number of years when I drove a taxicab in San Francisco and made numerous citizen's arrests with it. I also shot one holdup man who had just robbed me. Bottom-line, I have dealt with all kinds of people in my life and I can tell you not to pay any attention to anyone who tries to convince that you have emotional problems for carrying a weapon of some sort to defend yourself. In fact, it has been my experience that those types of individuals are useless and can never be depended on to aid their fellow citizens if they are being attacked by criminals.

One size fits all blanket statements like yours are usually made by idealists who have lived very narrow and sheltered lives.

Be specific and tell us exactly what action Taboo2 made reference to that caused the death of that Australian.

Right! And if my memory serves me correctly, they've had to cross the oceans of this world to protect others from intruders.

There is nothing ambiguous about my previous comment. The point of it should have been easily understood by anyone with average intelligence or above. That being said, let me simplify it for you. The point was, if you DO include those figures of 3.82 per 100,000 inhabitants, which include the homicide rate of the U.S. black population, then you are no longer comparing apples with apples.

How can you possibly have an "apples and apples comparison" if you bring the United States into the equation? After all, as I previously stated, it has a minority population whose males make up approximately six percent of the U.S. population but commit over 50% of its homicides. However, in the interest of apples and apples, if we subtract those homicides from the 3.82 per 100,000 we get a much lower homicide rate. That being said, there are other factors involved that prevent an apples to apples comparison, at least with the United States. Therefore, I would suggest, for example, comparing the private gun ownership rates of those countries like Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, and Austria that have lower homicide rates than the United Kingdom's. In that way you can see if their lower homicide rates are a result of low gun ownership rates or not. Japan and Singapore have extremely strict gun laws and very low homicide rates, but they cannot be part of the equation either because both countries have Capital Punishment on the books, which only one European nation today has. Also, it is worthy of mention, that Asian Americans have an extremely low crime rate even though they have access to firearms.

You need to look at a country's homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants and then do the same when looking up its rate of private gun ownership.

Maybe! But there is no evidence that high gun ownership rates in a country equal high homicide rates.

Well, in that case, I guess I'll have to sue the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for posting false documentation on the Internet-----which, incidentally, you can easily access. In fact, if it wasn't against the rules I would have posted the link to it.

Please don't say things like that, as an American I'm very sensitive and you've hurt my feelings. 😄

Because it has a minority population whose males make up only 6% of the U.S. population but are responsible for over 50% of its homicides. Not to mention the fact that it also has a long border with a violent Third World country whose nationals cross into the United States illegally and commit a large number of crimes.

Americans have no such Constitutional right to "bare" arms. In fact, many establishments in the United States will require you to wear a dinner jacket before you can enter their restaurants.

Good point! They're a lot stronger than their English-speaking peers who were raised on fish and chips.

That's on you and doesn't prove Taboo2 wrong.

Aaah, yes, of course, how thoughtless of me. Hopefully I won't be denied my flight because of a few staples in one of my passport pages.