Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
After recent legeslation that showed me how oppressive the WA is to nations I will be leaving it.
^ya I been hurt by it
Why do you need so many guns in the USA? Just interested, as I live in Wales.
Let's see: Hunting, rifle ranges, shotgun ranges, self-defense at home, self-defense on the street, etc.
It's both for sport and for practicality. You can't use the same gun for each.
Second-to-last act as Manager of Recruitment and Internal Affairs: I am now the Nation Support Center Specialist.
Last act as Manager: I resign from my manager position effective immediately, for I have failed the people of Libertatem in recruiting a single nation from the last drive. The position needs someone better.
I can accept hunting weapons, bolt actions, carbines and shotguns etc. But why do you need say, an assault rifle or something, like Obama's trying to get rid off? And, while I can accept you do need a pistol in the street if someone else has one, if there weren't any at all like in the UK, surely it wouldn't be a problem?
Not necessarily. There always will be bad people on this Earth, and even if guns are illegal, that won't really stop them from gaining them, albeit illegally. Personally, I'm all for civilians having guns/weapons, and even the larger (yes, very large) type. Part of the reasoning behind the Second Amendment was so civilians had just as much power as the government, and the government can't just decide to totally control us.
Also, do you know what happened during the Prohibition? If not, I suggest you read what happened. I have a feeling that if guns were banned, something similar would occur.
All of those arguments are actually fairly poor. You can stop people from gaining access to weapons, simply by them not being their in the first place. In the UK, as in many places in Europe, the number of guns in civilian hands is tiny, and so the number of guns in criminal hands is equally small. The were 58 firearms related deaths in Britain last year, compared to over 8000 in the US, which would be fine if Britain had a population equivalent to that of Puerto Rico, but the population is only one fifth of the US, whereas gun violence is down at 0.7 of a percent. Just how do these people plan on gaining access to weapons?
Secondly, the citizen will never (how are you going to bring down a helicopter with an ar15?) and should never have the same power as a government. If they did, why do you need to have one at all? Why have an army? If you don't trust your government, who are kept there as you would say by 'checks and balances', not by a few rednecks with AK's, why do you need to have a country at all.
Finally, we are not talking about brewing gin in a bathtub here, nor are we talking absolute bans on firearms. Have you ever built a functioning firearm? Have you, as a private citizen ever contracted an arms dealer? More to the point, there are usually limitations on ammunition, heavy ones in most other countries. I would love to see someone try and brew up a big batch of guncotton.
Perhaps my arguments were poor, but I still have a point. Also, when you were asking if I've ever built a functioning firearm and whatnot- no. Even though I have opinions on a fair amount of political things, guns aren't that interesting to me. :P
(Also, in my second to last message, what I meant was civilians as a whole -not individually- should have enough power to protect themselves from the government.)
I just find American gun politics and peoples views unusual, thats all. I'm in no way anti-gun, hope to get one or two myself when I have the cash and the wherewithal, and I think it would be fantastic if I could have a... grenade launcher or an anti-aircraft gun or whatever to keep kids of my lawn, but it just strikes me that I really don't need one, and neither does anyone else. My main thing is this idea that so many Americans will admit by proxy to be so backwards in terms of societal development that they can't have a government to protect them.
In reply to second message, once again I am fairly confident if the government chose to impose itself on you, it still could. Though I would say that quite frankly I don't see any historical precident anywhere in the world at any time for civilians requiring physical protection from a government en-mass.
Oh really, [nation=Liberosia]. You support civil rights by hating/banning gay marriage, abortion etc. You support political freedoms even though you seem to like having voter IDs when poor people can't afford them. You should realize it is liberals (except extreme liberalism) that support civil and political rights. Conservatives support economic rights.
Frontlinieverken - Oh, okay. Unfortunately, 1) I'm not old enough to vote, and 2) not many in my country vote the way I would find ideal. People are too dependent on the government, and the more we continue that direction, the more they have control of us. Which isn't all that great, considering who we have in charge.
Post self-deleted by Miencraft.
That one spammer guy that got suppressed was funny.
I would never argue against the fact that people are too reliant on government, and that in just about every country in the world the government imposes itself too much on the people, and the people likewise rely on government, for healthcare, benefits, monetary security etc. The one place I see a need for government is, however, with security, both externally and internally, both by force and, preferably, by sensible legislation. Americans seem to spend a lot of time talking about freedom, but what you all seem to miss is that the greatest freedom is to be free from fear, and, more practically, freedom from getting shot while going about your daily business. That is what government is there for, in my opinion.
Frontlinieverken, even if you could prove that a ban on guns and assualt weapons could be good, it doesn't matter, because it is our, the American's, constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Despite this, let me share a secret with you. England has the worst gun violence rate in Europe. Actually, your deaths more than doubled after your gun ban, as opposed to a smaller homicide rate before that. If you look at the good old US of A, you can see demographically that the areas, regions, and most of all states that experience significant forms of gun violence are liberal states that have instituted such restrictions. On the opposite side, states that are conservative like Texas have extremely low homicide rates. These states have little to no restrictions on the use of firearms for self defense and the, consequently, have less gun crime due to the deterrence factor. The problem, partially, in my country is partial gun control. As a teacher of mine once said, we need to either ban all guns with no exceptions, or allow the freedom to self defense with no exceptions. Seeing as states like Texas have lower homicide rates than European nations, I'd take freedom. Another interesting point that can be made is the violent crime rates in other nations. In England and Australia, where bans are instituted, and in other European nations as well, the violent crime rate is higher than in the whole US per capita. This goes back to the argument that criminals will simply find another form of weapon to carry out their crime, as they will. It is simple to murder someone with a knife, and with the police always so late and with a disarmed population, because that's all gun control does effectively, disarm the law abiding citizens, violent crime rises for lack of a deterrent.
Miencraft
Frontlinieverken, I disagree with you. I want the freedom to live my life the way I want to live it, without anyone telling me how I will. I also want the freedom to defend myself, because I believe I can do a better job than the police can at that. In fact, I know I can. I have a right to defend myself, depite what you might think. My liberty is my own to protect, seeing as a government so often abuses its power and infringes on my liberty and the liberty of others. A well armed citizen has the power to protect his rights, a disarmed citizen does not.
Why does the citizen of this great nation, which is the United States of America, need assault weapons? A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I have heard the argument often that the patriots back in 1776 only had muskets and that this is somehow different now since we have our semi-automatics. However, the principle of the citizenry that is armed lives on. One of the chief reasons for our Second Amendment stems from Jefferson's, and many other Founding Fathers', beliefs that "...it is the right of the people to throw off such government..." when it becomes destructive. With our capabilities, meaning semi-automatics and assault weaponry, the power of the government is matched by the power of the citizenry, giving "we the people" a chance to defeat the government if the needs arises. Questions of the likely hood of us, the people, succeeding are pointless. We may defeat the tyrannical government, or we may not. Remember, the British had the finest navy in the world and outnumbered us, the Americans, by far, but we defeated them. There is always a chance to save a country, but not if we do not have the power to do so. Governments know this, and that is why they seize the true power of the citizens.
I was quoting the Declaration of Independence.
I'm going to have to itemise, to stop this becoming a tirade of abuse.-1. The right to keep and bare arms is, comparatively, and ancient law, and is equivalent to me demanding the right to carry a mace in the streets to fend of the French invasion; it made sense when you were still engaged in revolution, but not now you are an established state. 2. Even if England does have the worst gun violence rate in europe, though looking at statistics it is behind France, Austria, Estonia, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Greece Sweden Denmark Latvia Iceland imjustpickingatrandom Cyrus etc (thats just for homicides, though another point is that even if we do have a high violence rate eg knife crime, its really difficult to kill double figures of people with a machete).
3. Gun control does not disarm the law abiding citizen, it disarms the population as whole. If I was a criminal, or a mentally ill person in this country, how would I get a gun; maybe break into a farm house, find the gun cabinet, crack out the locksmithing tools and walk away with rusty side-by-side- or a bolt action rifle if I was lucky. Or if I lived in a city, maybe I could get my hands on a pistol and a clip or two. What I could not do, is pop over to Uncle Buck's and borrow his Sig Sauer and a brace of Uzi's, plus a couple of crates of shells, or indeed just break into the neighbors and nick the 45. from their bedside table.
Finally, at number 4, I would like to say that I am so glad you read what I said earlier. You simply do not need these weapons. We banned assault rifles after Hungerford, pistols after Dunblane, and we simply do not have these weapons in the country anymore. I don't really care about your deliberate violence rate, in fact. Lots of countries have their problems, and maybe gun control doesn't really help that, if that is what you want to believe, though as I said before, you can kill far less people, hell, simply be getting rid of innocent bystanders with a knife or a petrol bomb than a 9mm. Even if you cut down on the list of mass-shootings in the US with a littel gun control, it would be a start. Simple stats would say that if there are less guns, fewer mentally ill people can get their hands on them, as can fewer criminals.
What is the obsession with throwing off your government? The government IS the people, that is the whole point of your constitution, and the constitution of many countries in the world. And if you need defending from an outside force, you have a military, armed and trained. I would like to point out that, in law, if the general follows the specific, the specific should be considered the priority. Thus, you primarily require a 'well regulated militia', which is what, in a post-feudal society some people might call an 'army'. They also are deemed, by your constitution, to be necessary 'for the security of a free state', and I would say that, by proxy, that would make the security of the state the primary concern, not the rights of the people to have military weapons.
1. The right to keep and bear arms is a timeless liberty for the free citizen. Even if you don't think it is, we have it in our constitution, so there's nothing any liberal can do about it.
2. I was using the UK and Australia as examples, not neccessarily that they were the worst, although Britain's crime rate is extremely high. Not really, it is easy to kill people with other weapons.
3. So it disarms the population as a whole, but not the law abiding citizen...hmmm...bad logic there. And also, the people with the guns in the home would shoot the intruder before the gun could be acquired.
4. We need these weapons. 1) for self defense, as it is our right and 2) to counter the abuse of a federal government should it happen. More guns, less crime. Just look at the demographics in America.
Also, everything I said above.
What is the obsession with throwing off your government? The government IS the people, that is the whole point of your constitution, and the constitution of many countries in the world. And if you need defending from an outside force, you have a military, armed and trained. I would like to point out that, in law, if the general follows the specific, the specific should be considered the priority. Thus, you primarily require a 'well regulated militia', which is what, in a post-feudal society some people might call an 'army'. They also are deemed, by your constitution, to be necessary 'for the security of a free state', and I would say that, by proxy, that would make the security of the state the primary concern, not the rights of the people to have military weapons.
Yes, we have the military for foreign threats like Al Quada and the terrorists, but we have ouselves for domestic threats. I'd like to point out, that we would not throw off the government until it became destructive of the ends of liberty. Before that, we'd do as the founding fathers did and petition for our liberty again and again. The military is the tool of the government, and preferably the government is, as you said, "the people". But it so often is not, especially when it has grown as large and powerful as ours has. So when the government is no longer beholden to the people, the military, by extension, is no longer beholden to the people. When this happens, the government uses coercion and the only thing the citizen has to fall back on is himself and his fellow citizens. They are allowed to keep and bear arms for themselves, but also to form a militia to counter the federal government and its power.
1. Why can you not just have SOME arms, secured and restricted, and out of the hands of the kind of people who should not have them.
2. Final point of yours, I refer you to an incident in the UK some time ago, look up Lisa Potts. That would have been a different story with a gun of any kind.
3. It disarms EVERYONE. I never said the law abiding citizen got to keep his machine gun, but he wouldn't need it , because there would be precious few people out there who were intent on shooting his ass. And to use the example of the Newtown shootings, if the guys mother had not had a bushmaster and a couple of semi-autos, which you would NOT have lying about the house in almost any other part of the would, events would have been very different. Actually robbery account for precious few illegal weapons, in the same way as flick knives and machetes count among very few of our knife statistics compared to knifes taken from kitchen draws.
4. Type 'gun crime by state' into google, tell me what you see first few results.
As I said before, give me a historical precedent for the claim that a government can oppress its people. History, in my book, ALWAYS repeats itself, so a precedent can always be found for a correct claim.
1. Law abiding people should have the right to bear arms to defend themselves. It's the right thing to do. I, for one, want to keep my guns.
2. Not really final. Try Juan Corona, and see if machetes don't do damage. Your attempted murderer had schizophrenia, this guy was a psycopath with a machete.
3. It sure does disarm the citizens. I repeat, the citizen has not only the right to defend himself, but also the ability to defend oneself individually is better protection than waiting for the police to clean up your dead body. I don't know if you know this, but there is a black market for firearms that criminals could use to get the weapons. The only sure thing gun control does is disarm the citizen that is law abiding. It is not so effective at disarming everyone.
England oppressed the American colonies. The NAZIs oppressed its own people. The Russians slaughtered millions (I should say the Soviet Government slaughtered millions).
All pro-gun members, I suggest you save this link: http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
1. Not really an argument. As I say, you do not need to defend yourself, secondly, what you want has little bearing on the situation. I WANT a handgun, in fact I want a M1 Abrams, but whether me having one is to the benefit of the people around me is an entirely different thing.
2. Juan Corona was, from the articles I've read, a serial killer, not a killer en-mass at a single time. I could kill 25 with a bit of piano wire if I took my time about it.
3. Thats what I said. And the black market is supplied by guns that would not be there if they were not legally allowed in the country in the first place. There simply is not a warehouse full of Glock automatics in Britain, at least not without military protection. Just because it is not SO effective, does not mean it is not effective. Criminals cannot get guns easily in a country that has very few. That is why Britain has less than former Soviet Union nations, that were flooded with them when the wall came down.
---In reply to second- While I could have extensive debate as to just how harsh Britain was in its oppression, it was not a government per-se, but a colonial power. The USA was virtually an independent nation removing an 'oppressor'. The Nazi's did not oppress their people in a way that could have been countered with a few shotguns. A huge percentage of the German people were accepting of the regime. Finally, the Soviet government is frankly a specialist subject of mine, so take it from me when I say that those killed were a relative minority, not an oppressed majority, and even if every citizen in the state had been armed, they could and would not have done anything against the regime. Much was done with propaganda, the single party system etc that could never have been fought against with mere bullets. That is the scary thing about the wider ideas of politics and state-systems, is that rising up against them is just too simple an option to ever be successful, thus making it a pointless and dangerous idea.
Post self-deleted by Liberosia.
Post self-deleted by Liberosia.
Post self-deleted by Liberosia.
It seems a little much to ban him, Liberosia. He didn't really shw sympathy for the Commies.
Very well, his messages have been unsuppressed and he has been unbanned.
I'm back, and I hope you received my message Liberosia.
Received.
Hail Capitalism and Liberty.
As in, economic liberty is the greatest liberty.
Welsh...
As for my resignation, I'm making a modification - I don't mean effective immediately: I will voluntarily leave the position as soon as the Constitution meets the bare minimum ratification requirements.
Also, there are still two slots in the Department of Internal Affairs that need filling.
13th b'ak'tun ends today.
Well, here's to being Still Alive.
So where Kool-aid sale's up today? lol
Tis the season to be blown to smithereens
Fa la la la la la la la la
Let fire rain down (or war machines)
Fa la la la la la la la la
Don we now our end of the age
Fa la la, la la la, la la la
The apocalypse is all the rage
Fa la la la la la la la la
Merry doomsday, everyone!
I'm always on the last page for these industries.
Oh well.
I also forgot to mention that my nation makes nice vehicles. Beats public transport.
Welcome, Oceasia.
Conservative Idealism, I am calling on you to not resign. You have been quite invaluable as a regional leader. I have seen some success from your recruiting and you dealt with Internal Affairs with skill and prowess.
Alright. I won't resign.
Nations, please do keep in mind: There are positions in the Department of Internal Affairs available still, even though this is the umpteenth time I've said so.
My industry might be bad, my nation's freedoms might be small, but by George we are faithful.
Daaaannnngggg...I've gotta get up from #16 in that. (At least I'm also number 6.)
Due to my embarrasment of how badly my nation's freedoms are we have made Ron Paul the president of the ISA in attempts to increase political and civil rights.
As called for by our constitution, our region will soon be in need of an Attorney General. Any nation wishing to apply for the job of "government lawyer" please contact me. Also, the House of Representatives, which will be the entire population of Libertatem, may choose its own Attorney (of the People). Anyone wishing to run for House Attorney please contact me so that I may schedule an election. If only one person applies for the job, they will receive it.
I like this region, every nation except commies are allowed to come.
Indeed. I think it works rather well.
That was the idea, and so far, we've made out quite well. However, we do get into some ideological disputes about the role of government in the affairs of the economy and the people from time to time.
W00t third-lowest tax burden!
The entire population is the House...?
Damn.
Oh, damn, I'm 62nd lowest tax burden.
I can fix that.
Yeah, you're all the House.
I have the lowest tax burden and I'm in the top 1% of the world also. A true christmas miracle.
I have the highest crime rates. :P
A Merry Christmas to all our friends.
And a Merry Christmas to you. :)
Merry Christmas.
Dearest friends, I wish you all a merry christmas and I sincerely hope you enjoy the evening and tomorrow to the fullest. May the coming year be prosperous, and the victories of liberty all around.
Merry Christmas to all, and a splendid new year. :)
I'm going to be that one weird person who says "Happy Christmas" and "HEY LOOK IT'S 2013 LOL WE'RE NOT DEAD"
Oh hey, I got an easter egg issue for Christmas.
I'm tied for second-best automotive industry in the region with three other nations 0_o
Also, Merry Christmas, all. (Today is that day, for just a little while longer.)
I can understand why Idealistic would have a huge mining industry (*shudders*), but how did my main get so high up there?
I find it ironic that I have a very small mining industry.
because your country's name is miencraft?
Agenda 21 (the Glenn Beck book, not the U.N. thing) is pretty interesting.
If you all out there like Glenn Beck, I do too, then check out Liberty and Tyranny and Ameritopia by Mark Levin.
I think I've got both of those, haven't had time to get into them though.
Am I the only one who received a telegram from a commie wishing help to fight commies he doesn't like?
yes, you are the only one(i think). Who did send you the telegrams?
Anyway, how do i make the right decisions on issues because my classification change every day and now im fascist
You're not really a fascist, that's just what the liberal nation states simulator says about "Inoffensive Centrist Democracy"...are you using the liberal nationstates simulator?
The "right decisions" would be based on what you think is right. We can't really tell you how to think, can we?
You just need to learn which choices have which consequences, and go with the ones you like.
I use the conservative simulator. What yours calls fascism, mine calls communism, but in actuality it's centrism. (I don't like any of those three.)
I'm a big fan of the Conservative NS Simulator....just my personal bias showing though.
I've noticed several inaccuracies with this one...but the liberal one is incorrect on every point. The neutral one sugarcoats, so I prefer the conservative simulator.
Apparently I'm a bit behind on this, but...what is a NS simulator?
NS simulator = the entire game.
They're talking about the themes.
Conservative NS is my favorite.
Ah, okay. I had never heard the game referred to more than "NS" before, so thanks.
Seriously, government? Sounds like in 2013, once someone dies the government will be stealing 50%. Ergh. :/
However, something that's actually super cool is Hobby Lobby. They refuse to pay for ObamaCare for their employees because OC gives out abortion pills, day-after, and week-after pills. Sometime soon Hobby Lobby will have to be paying 1.2m a day if they continue to refuse OC, but they're awesome. I really hope they make a big point and more people start to realize that abortion really is murder.
Let me correct that, the fines for not complying with Obamacare could add up to 1.3 million dollars per day. Source - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/26/supreme-court-denies-hobby-lobby-request-for-reprieve-from-health-care-mandate/
I should buy more things from Hobby Lobby.
I want to ask you all a big favor and here it is and then you'll recieve my explanation, go to theteaparty.net and sign up for email alerts and the main thing I want you to do is sign the "Tell Boehner No!" petition. I want you all to do this because currently in the congress Boehner and McConnell are bending their knees to Obama and Reid and passing bills in the House to increase taxes and spending which is against the conservative and republican message, read the party platform if you don't believe me. We must not allow Boehner to be a slave to Obama so Obama can get what he wants we must go over the cliff, yes I did say go over it, so then Obama has no room to talk and we can say " well we proposed many bills to stop this from happening but the Liberals in congress wouldn't budge" and that will put us in a position of power to tell the other side " this is what we want done and this is how we're going to do it". While I'm at it I want to extend my hope that when the new Congress meets and the house elects a Speaker I hope a new Speaker will arise and I hope it to be Michele Bachmann, a woman who in my opinion always stands up for conservatism.
^ Oh look, guys. Someone who actually trusts politicians.
Even conservatives aren't safe from the government's corruption.
I don't ask for criticism just cooperation, but yes I do trust my politicians because they hold the power and they, atleast the representative of mine and other districts, represent my voice in the congress which is unheard unless spoken by them.
They're doing a lot more than representing, including lining their pockets. I don't think a petition is going to stop the spread of corruption. I'd help if not for the e-mail alerts thing.
If an e-mail alert will stop you from protecting your country then thats disgraceful.
Oh, please. This won't protect jack squat.
If we want to protect the people, we need to hold the government accountable for their crimes and make them pay up...by force, if we have to! We can't do that by just wagging our finger at any given politician. I was never rooting for a wuss like Boehner, and I could tell from the beginning that he'd be easy for Obama to trick.
Wait, we need more woman leaders? IMO, guys should be the ones in charge.
The only way to make them pay up is to vote them out and if they do commit a crime we must call them out for it and put them on the spot.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.