Lets talk about firearms- guns...

[Ed Oscuro]

Very good! I said this earlier. Glad to see you're following along.

I've been saying this the whole time. It was you who earlier suggested guns bans worked to decrease crime.

I'm agreeing with the cultural context part, not the "gun bans don't decrease crimes" argument.

You had me worried there for a moment.

More fun stuff to read:
Swiss Mosque Shooting Excitement!

[Michaelm]

I've been saying this the whole time. It was you who earlier suggested guns bans worked to decrease crime.

Ofcourse they decrease crime.
Script kiddies.... You take away the scripts, you don't have any kiddies.
Only the hardcore ones will know what to do.
You take away the guns, you take away the wannabe criminals.
Only the hardcore ones will know what to do.

[Ed Oscuro]

You take away the tacos, you don't have any hunger.

[Acid King]

I'm agreeing with the cultural context part, not the "gun bans don't decrease crimes" argument.

If you agree that the availability of guns isn't an indicator of violent crime, why would you think banning them would lower it?

[xorthen]

You take away the tacos, you don't have any hunger.

You remind me of a simpleton.

[ED-057]

Script kiddies.... You take away the scripts, you don't have any kiddies.

Please. I would define script kiddies as those who have an inclination to cause trouble and the time to succeed at it. Taking away the scripts (whatever that means, I hope you would see that an attempt to stifle the spread of knowledge, over the internet of all things, doesn't work) isn't going to make anyone go away!

You take away the guns, you take away the wannabe criminals.
Only the hardcore ones will know what to do.

Now you're saying that people don't know how to commit crimes? People only turn to crime because guns make it fun and easy?

Ed, you have mentioned using statistics to judge the necessity or effectiveness of a ban. Regardless of what any statistics say, and how people interpret them, I would ask how you weigh the expected benefits (especially those which can be quantified, eg. reduction in number of injuries/deaths inflicted by guns) against the expected costs (especially those which cannot be quantified, such as the loss of rights of law-abiding citizens). Where do you draw the line? Perhaps that is the real question.

Personally, I am always skeptical of bans and other laws that are not easily enforced. As much as people want and perhaps believe that law enforcement can prevent crime, at some point you really need to rely on your fellow humans being decent. While taking away tools that criminals use can certainly have measurable positive effect, it is always a trade-off. And no matter how many times laws and security measures are tightened down, there remain some remarkably easy ways of causing harm. What will we ban to prevent arson, poison, vehicular homicide, strangulation...?

Regarding a gun ban specifically, I wonder what would be done when a criminal robs a gas station using a fake gun (realistic-looking, but not functional). Ban anything that looks like a gun? What will be done if criminals are found constructing their own guns? Ban materials and instructions that aid in constructing guns? How will people react when a trespasser who meant no harm is shot and killed by an arrow? Ban bows?

And while we're considering gun violence that occurs within a country and asking how much it might be cut down by a ban, I wonder if the large-scale sale of weapons across borders hasn't contributed to a more considerable amount of death and destruction. (another can of worms)

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm agreeing with the cultural context part, not the "gun bans don't decrease crimes" argument.

If you agree that the availability of guns isn't an indicator of violent crime, why would you think banning them would lower it?

Already explained why: It makes violent crime - or even the response to it - worse.

It might be worth noting that simply looking at "crime" statistics as an indicator of the harm to society is misleading. This is why I prefer handgun death statistics, and no, it's not picking and choosing. Suicides and overreactions by gun owners that aren't pursued as crimes are still harmful to society, no matter whether you think of them as crime or not.

I don't like the attitude that just because some people with guns out in the wilderness are peaceable that it's alright for people in the city to be loaded. The recent verdict in a New York shooting by police officers recalls the situation: cops there are surrounded by criminals with guns and "playing it safe" in that environment often leads to lead innocent people.

You take away the tacos, you don't have any hunger.

You remind me of a simpleton.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ed, you have mentioned using statistics to judge the necessity or effectiveness of a ban. Regardless of what any statistics say, and how people interpret them, I would ask how you weigh the expected benefits (especially those which can be quantified, eg. reduction in number of injuries/deaths inflicted by guns) against the expected costs (especially those which cannot be quantified, such as the loss of rights of law-abiding citizens). Where do you draw the line? Perhaps that is the real question.

Thank goodness! Somebody finally asks the right question, instead of trying to trip me up by endlessly repeating their statements in the hope I'll be inconsistent. Much appreciated, thanks.

The benefit of self-defense becomes a negative when people shoot nonviolent offenders; everyone should ask themselves if the inconvenience of losing their wallet's contents outweighs the inconvenience to somebody else of losing their life.

There are many defensive gun uses (DGUs) each year (maybe 200K, maybe 2.5 million). Regardless, I have to ask why less-lethal defenses wouldn't be preferable for most people - if you're relatively fit, why not carry a taser and follow through with punches?

Regardless, home defense is a legitimate use of firearms, but it's the lack of exploration for alternatives (and laws that sometimes punish any use besides holding a criminal at gunpoint or shooting them dead) that concerns me. Clearly, somebody who's relatively fit could (assuming friendly laws) employ a taser or a baton to the same outcome. They could also have a pistol as a final defense, but the people who shoot first and ask questions later are a concern.

Naturally, living someplace with a lower rate of crime makes having a firearm less necessary. If I had a pawn shop in Detroit, I'd look into getting a firearm, definitely. But I (currently) live in suburbs, and the dangers outweigh possible benefits.

Of course, a firearm in the home is a constant danger. Accidents and suicide are a significant argument against keeping firearms at home. For instance: "Medical and public health researchers have long viewed the availability of firearms as a significant causal factor in suicide." No gun in the house? One less thing to think about when you're feeling down.

Finally, the idea that a person with guns is going to take meaningful defense action against the government is ludicrous. Ruby Ridge, Waco, and other standoffs universally demonstrate that you don't go up against the Feds with weapons. Best to talk to them and pursue the legal route.

It would be nice if we started reforming our corrections system; if all the gun advocates redirected their energy towards that problem we'd certainly be improving the prison system.

[evil_ash_xero]

I think I'd feel safer if I could own an rpg. In fact I think gun laws should be tailored to the type of area you live in.

ie. If you live in West Virginia or in a desert area with lots of mountains, you would want a high powered gun to defend yourself from inbred mutants.

Ouch!

But seriously, I feel pretty strongly for gun control. Limit the amount of guns people can own, and especially the TYPE of guns. If people have any type of violent criminal record, I think they shouldn't be able to purchase guns. Bring back the waiting period with more scrutiny in background checks. BAN sub automatic and/or automatic weapons. Limit the number of handguns that are produced, and make it more difficult for people to get them. Rifles and shot guns are fine, but I think all Americans should have to have I.D.s with them.

I own a handgun myself, and when I purchased it I was shocked at the ease of which I got it. Luckily, i'm not a person with a violent track record and have never even fired it.

I think we can do better than just throw our hands up in the air and say "we can't do nothin'!".

But eh, what do I know...

s/m

[Ed Oscuro]

So just bolt action rifles, pump shotguns, and revolvers? I suppose those work fine for home defense and hunting, but in terms of safety recent semi-automatic weapons have come a long way. There's something to be said for modern technology, after all.

Handguns are the most dangerous type of weapon - easily concealed, easier to drop and kill yourself with or commit suicide with.

[jpj]

Handguns are the most dangerous type of weapon - easily concealed, easier to drop and kill yourself with or commit suicide with.

that's a good point. would banning handguns have an impact an armed robberies?

[Acid King]

Already explained why: It makes violent crime - or even the response to it - worse.

That would only make crime less deadly, not lower crime rates. Statistically, crime would stay the same if you turned all gun related murders in to attempted murder or assault.

[Ed Oscuro]

Handguns are the most dangerous type of weapon - easily concealed, easier to drop and kill yourself with or commit suicide with.

that's a good point. would banning handguns have an impact an armed robberies?

Yes.

Already explained why: It makes violent crime - or even the response to it - worse.

That would only make crime less deadly, not lower crime rates.

This is the last time I'll say this: I never said getting rid of firearms will, by itself, eliminate crime.

Less deadly crime is a good thing. Again, I asked this question earlier - inconvenience vs. fatalities, which is worse?

If you're interested in reducing crime rates, you need to tackle the underlying causes of crime head-on. I could list them, but I don't think it's needed.

[Acid King]

Less deadly crime is a good thing. Again, I asked this question earlier - inconvenience vs. fatalities, which is worse?

I agree. Like I said earlier, I think the right to self defense outweighs the potential drop in deaths.

If you're interested in reducing crime rates, you need to tackle the underlying causes of crime head-on.

That's all I've been suggesting.

[MR_Soren]

Europe has strict gun regulations and bans, but they also have good health care, shorter work hours, stable economies, and governments that serve the citizens instead of the corporations.


The unbalanced living conditions, stress, and abundance of poverty in the US creates people who want to commit crimes. If the system is fixed, crime will be reduced. If crime is reduced, fewer people will want to own guns. The rest will follow.

[Ed Oscuro]

I can agree with all of that, Acid King. I'm not convinced that it *does* outweigh the harms in many places, but self-determination is important - if people in dangerous cities want that protection despite the dangers, that must be their call.

This is why (in my view) the NRA and gun-control folks, on both ends of the spectrum, have it all wrong.

I find it amusing that everybody thought I was for a national gun ban. I shouldn't have to state my position to question facts, sheesh.

Europe has strict gun regulations and bans, but they also have good health care, shorter work hours, stable economies, and governments that serve the citizens instead of the corporations.

I think there's some truth to this - in our nation there is a definite trend towards obsessing about individual rights and property which ends up short-changing the public: Private splendor, public squalor.

...of course the reverse can be true at times, as well, and don't underestimate the potential for good of the private person. Until lately (Bush's recent foreign aid initiatives might have changed this) the U.S. was pretty far back in terms of foreign aid from the national government, but that was more than offset by private aid from its citizens. American people are very giving, a fact that doesn't suit anti-Americanism.

[Michaelm]

Please. I would define script kiddies as those who have an inclination to cause trouble and the time to succeed at it.

Script kiddies are kiddies who can only 'hack' by using ready made scripts.
SO..

Taking away the scripts (whatever that means, I hope you would see that an attempt to stifle the spread of knowledge, over the internet of all things, doesn't work) isn't going to make anyone go away!

Taking away the scripts will leave them clueless on how to hack !

You take away the guns, you take away the wannabe criminals.
Only the hardcore ones will know what to do.

Now you're saying that people don't know how to commit crimes? People only turn to crime because guns make it fun and easy?

You are missing the point.
Anybody can come over as a hard motherfucker waving a gun.
There are only a few who can do that without a gun !
Hence, they will shit their pants even thinking about crime.

Personally, I am always skeptical of bans and other laws that are not easily enforced.

Ofcourse this takes a whole lot of time. It doesn't happen overnight. We all know that. But you have to start somewhere...

As much as people want and perhaps believe that law enforcement can prevent crime, at some point you really need to rely on your fellow humans being decent.

That is what is happening now too.

While taking away tools that criminals use can certainly have measurable positive effect, it is always a trade-off.

I'm getting a bit sick of the way people apparently think about criminals.
I'm getting the impression as if people see them as a complete different species which simply is not the case.
Even you can become a 'criminal' under the 'right' circumstances.

And no matter how many times laws and security measures are tightened down, there remain some remarkably easy ways of causing harm.

There will always be. The point is to take away some obvious ways.

What will we ban to prevent arson, poison, vehicular homicide, strangulation...?

I think these are all in effect right now. They are all illegal.

Regarding a gun ban specifically, I wonder what would be done when a criminal robs a gas station using a fake gun (realistic-looking, but not functional). Ban anything that looks like a gun?

In effect in the Netherlands.
There were even some lightguns that were forbidden here because it looked like a real gun too much.

What will be done if criminals are found constructing their own guns? Ban materials and instructions that aid in constructing guns?

Yeah, most probably. This is how it always goes. You can't ban something that doesn't exist yet.

How will people react when a trespasser who meant no harm is shot and killed by an arrow? Ban bows?

One trespasser ? That's called a tragic accident.
Hundreds of trespassers ? Then it's time for laws.

And while we're considering gun violence that occurs within a country and asking how much it might be cut down by a ban, I wonder if the large-scale sale of weapons across borders hasn't contributed to a more considerable amount of death and destruction. (another can of worms)

It's the fault of them !
Well, you want a better world ? You start with yourself.

[Randorama]

American people are very giving, a fact that doesn't suit anti-Americanism.

Hear, hear. How this is relevant to the topic itself? It smells like I am going to invoke eugenics in a few posts or so.

hell yes to self offense, in the name of Darwin (awards)!

Ah, oh, nevermind!

[Ed Oscuro]

American people are very giving, a fact that doesn't suit anti-Americanism.

Hear, hear. How this is relevant to the topic itself? It smells like I am going to invoke eugenics in a few posts or so.

Don't know where eugenics is coming from, but hey, if we're going to talk about differences between the U.S. and Europe...

[Randorama]

Don't know where eugenics is coming from, but hey, if we're going to talk about differences between the U.S. and Europe...

Not in topic, and you're not Daaa-lek. Ext-teer-mi-nate!

Seriously, though, could you think thrice before the usual 'zomg you're anti-american if you dare not to praise bitgottmitunsland!'? It would be disgraceful on so many levels. For once you may want to envision that there is a whole wordly world outside of the Village. I'll put a good word with N.2, no worries!

[FIL]

So which is worse? guns or monotheism?

[Ed Oscuro]

Rando: Spare me the comparisons to Dr Who's Daleks and The Village, please (you forgot Airstrip One, btw). I'm the last person who accuses people of anti-Americanism without justification - at least I thought I was. Surely you can point it out without getting an unholy bug up your arse.

I've been comparing the U.S. to the rest of the world in terms of gun laws the whole conversation, and not favorably in the case of the U.S. I'm not going to get preachy and upright about your lack of attention and failure to think thrice before accusing me of making an argument in bad faith, but instead I merely offer this point for your consideration.

Be that as it may, I'm willing to correct myself if I'm wrong on calling something anti-Americanism. I certainly didn't mean to invoke the whole gamut of nastiness which the phrase "anti-Americanism" is intended to convey, but perhaps it's my friends who have attached all that character to the phrase.

I don't think it's stretching the facts to say that MR_Soren was insinuating that America isn't as good as Europe in certain ways. I don't think it's a burden on my credibility to point out that Europe has had racial harmony for centuries and has its own racial growing pains, some of which are flaring up once again (Turkish immigrants and Neo-Nazis in Germany, for instance). Look at MichaelM's discussion of the state of Islamic people in the Netherlands, for instance. I'm not aware of an upswing in violence in Europe, and I hope there won't be one.

So which is worse? guns or monotheism?

Ask Michaelm.

[Michaelm]

So which is worse? guns or monotheism?

Monotheism, capitalism, guns.

[Randorama]

Rando: Spare me the comparisons to Dr Who's Daleks and The Village, please (you forgot Airstrip One, btw).

Please don't be unmutual, N. 6!

I don't think it's stretching the facts to say that MR_Soren was insinuating that America isn't as good as Europe in certain ways.

Wrong, he pointed out the lack of certain reasons for the lack of violence in most of Europe. I say 'most', because in some places (Charleroi, Crete, etc.) a favourite past-time is random violence (say, in Charleroi there's a lot of fatal stabbing...). The situation is similar to any big U.S. city, in terms of poverty, stress, etc.

I don't think it's a burden on my credibility to point out that Europe has had racial harmony for centuries and has its own racial growing pains, some of which are flaring up once again (Turkish immigrants and Neo-Nazis in Germany, for instance).

Are you even aware that Europe there are like 1 zillion separatist movements? For instance, Belgium walloons and Flemish, Italian lega Nord, any extreme right movement around, etc. Not to mention eternal tribalisms, like Bavarians vs. the rest of Germany, and so on and so forth...you just need to look at the Balkan wars to have a good idea. Try to be Polish in Eastern Germany or Rumenian in Italy, regardless of which Spaghetti flying Monster you believe (and keep in mind that 'Poland' at time was Prussia, i.e. a germanic state).

Also, are you aware that History of Europe, at a quick glance, is a series of religious/ethnical/whatever wars, in which governments used the argument of 'zomg the foreigner! War!' to sustain 'economies of war'? Right now it looks like the many nations of Europe are nice, safe places in which people can't be bothered with ultimate destinies and the like. That is, you're totally wrong about historical facts. The whole 'Islamic immigrants' is bullshit. Yesterday southern Italians were seen as mafioso slackers by their northern Italian immigrants (and were exploited like slaves at work...).

Again, the balkan wars are a perfect case of 'ethnic strife' existing since forever. Tito forced unity without building any solid basis for it (zomg! Communism magically solves everything! Marx told me when I got Der Kapital on Sinai!) and everyone waited 40 years to kill the neighbours* with glee, courtesy also of mineral companies (French, German and US, plus other groups) to ravage Yugoslavia.

In practice, though, the France riots proved otherwise. Poor black teenagers from Africa exploded since they grew up in urban lagers built by the same people that then branded them as 'pigs' (or whatever: Chirac, Sarkozy). No one went around on a killing spree, but then again, how many dead there were after Rodney King's beating? How many deaths at soccer (or any sports event) you had so far? Just look at some stadia during match of the shittiest sport ever created. How many dead there were at Heysel?

One could get some statistics about violent deaths in the whole of Europe and weigh them against the U.S. ones (All states of Europe sum up to 450 M people, US is roughly 300 M). US would probably still win, but one should then check how many of those are crime-related (and where: poor urban slums are hotbeds for violence, may it be Palermo or Chicago, see Devitt's 'freakonomics').

Then, one gets the domestic deaths and the random killing sprees. Frankly, the formers qualify as Darwin awards, the latter can be traumatic, but how frequent they are? If anything, I'd invoke more prozac+ in water (whoops!).

The point for which the whole anti-americanism browoahahah is pointless is simple, but I'll point it out with a riddle, dedicated to the awesome Matt Bianco song:

Which side (of the Bilderberger) are you on?

Said this, my kisses should be outlawed. They are so spiffy that could kill anyone with their hotness!



*I am not making this one up. Some old guy was interviewed by some famous journalist and he said that even before Tito's death, people were already amassing weapons for the incoming civil war. Vendettas die hard, so to speak (ask Cretans, Sicilians, Marseillans, etc.).

[Neon]

So which is worse? guns or monotheism?

Circumcision.

Duh!

[Twiddle]

So which is worse? guns or monotheism?

Circumcision.

Duh!

Circumcision is the cause of many psychosomatic diseases, such as penis inferiority complex

[ED-057]

Taking away the scripts will leave them clueless on how to hack !

It may force them to learn, if they are to accomplish their goals. But you are speaking hypothetically about scripts disappearing, ignoring the question of how the scripts could actually be taken away in the real world.

Ofcourse this takes a whole lot of time. It doesn't happen overnight. We all know that. But you have to start somewhere...

Yes, but I'm sure someone said the same thing about prohibition.

I'm getting a bit sick of the way people apparently think about criminals. I'm getting the impression as if people see them as a complete different species which simply is not the case. Even you can become a 'criminal' under the 'right' circumstances.

That's true, but I am "innocent until proven guilty." That is at the core of the US legal system. Enacting laws that take away my rights only because of my potential to commit a crime would seem to fly in the face of that presumption of innocence.

What will we ban to prevent arson, poison, vehicular homicide, strangulation...?

I think these are all in effect right now. They are all illegal.

Murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and armed robbery are also illegal. So the gun problem is already solved?

In effect in the Netherlands.
There were even some lightguns that were forbidden here because it looked like a real gun too much.

OK that's logical. But I feel it is the wrong approach. I guess filmmakers can't use realistic props when shooting in the Netherlands then?

What will be done if criminals are found constructing their own guns? Ban materials and instructions that aid in constructing guns?

Yeah, most probably. This is how it always goes. You can't ban something that doesn't exist yet.

How will people react when a trespasser who meant no harm is shot and killed by an arrow? Ban bows?

One trespasser ? That's called a tragic accident.
Hundreds of trespassers ? Then it's time for laws.

See, now we're to the point where the thing we're talking about banning (bows) is so ridiculously simple that it can't possibly be accomplished, short of locking everyone away in padded rooms, IMO.

I think this illustrates perfectly how our countries differ. You seem to believe in the government intervening in its' citizens' affairs to work for the common good. And in many ways it has served you well.

Meanwhile, when it comes to my own government (mainly the Federal government) I don't have any more trust or confidence in them than I do a five-year-old. I would say the founders of this country also distrusted government and did not believe that some problems should be answered by more laws, to the extent that they outlined the specific list of things that the federal government was allowed to do and left authority over everything else to the states or citizens. (I am saddened to say that this doctrine has been mostly trampled into the dirt since then)

[ED-057]

Finally, the idea that a person with guns is going to take meaningful defense action against the government is ludicrous. Ruby Ridge, Waco, and other standoffs universally demonstrate that you don't go up against the Feds with weapons. Best to talk to them and pursue the legal route.

On a related note, I read once about a case shortly after WW2 of armed rebellion in a small town in Tenessee (IIRC). I don't remember many details at this point, but basically soldiers returned from the war and found the sheriff's office corrupt and engaged in some kind of mischief. Complaints to higher authorities went unanswered. Then when elections rolled around the sheriff's thugs used force to prevent people from voting. A group of largely veterans then armed themselves and surrounded the jail, and after a day or two the former sheriff and his allies surrendered.

[Michaelm]

But you are speaking hypothetically about scripts disappearing

We are speaking hypothetically about restricting gun laws too

That's true, but I am "innocent until proven guilty." That is at the core of the US legal system. Enacting laws that take away my rights only because of my potential to commit a crime would seem to fly in the face of that presumption of innocence.

That's the same over here. Innocent until proven guilty.
But if it's only the presumption of innocence you're concerned about then why can't you wave with a nuclear bomb ?
I mean, an innocent man would only wave and never use it.

Murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and armed robbery are also illegal. So the gun problem is already solved?

No, because like I said.
Anybody can come over as a hard motherfucker waving a gun.
A law against carrying guns would take care of that though.

I guess filmmakers can't use realistic props when shooting in the Netherlands then?

I'm guessing they will have to do some paperwork and get an allowance for the time of the 'shooting'
By the same logic I could wonder if in American people are really heavily armed like in the movies.

See, now we're to the point where the thing we're talking about banning (bows) is so ridiculously simple that it can't possibly be accomplished, short of locking everyone away in padded rooms, IMO.

Usually you lock up the worst ones and the rest will follow suit.
In the Netherlands it hasn't been that long ago when the decision was made that they wanted all weapons out of the street. So even knives.
The government made it known that you had one year to bring in those weapons without getting fined. After that year the fines would be in the ten thousands. They collected a nice deal of weapons in that year

I think this illustrates perfectly how our countries differ. You seem to believe in the government intervening in its' citizens' affairs to work for the common good. And in many ways it has served you well.

Oh hang on ! I don't trust my government !
They sometimes do things that I can approve but all in all they are just a bunch of thieves. I believe a government these days sees itself as a business where making a profit is much more important then caring for the people.

Meanwhile, when it comes to my own government (mainly the Federal government) I don't have any more trust or confidence in them than I do a five-year-old.

We're quite alike

I would say the founders of this country also distrusted government and did not believe that some problems should be answered by more laws, to the extent that they outlined the specific list of things that the federal government was allowed to do and left authority over everything else to the states or citizens. (I am saddened to say that this doctrine has been mostly trampled into the dirt since then)

I would say that's mostly due to the way America gained it's independence. I think the founders were clever enough to know that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to get rid of the guns under the people that helped the founders found the country.
It wouldn't help them gain the sympathy of the people, on the contrary.
I think if the founders put gun restricting laws in the constitution the civil war wouldn't have ended then.

Anyway, your country is responsible for the state it's in just like my country is for theirs.
Criminality is high because of the extremely big differences between poor and rich. The extremely big difference between poor and rich is a direct consequence of capitalism.
Now guns could be helpful against a violent government but they wont help against capitalism.
In other words, you've been left under the impression that you can call your government to senses with firearms while the government is slowly killing you in economic ways.
And even all those guns are no match for the firepower the army has.

[Ed Oscuro]

Rando: Spare me the comparisons to Dr Who's Daleks and The Village, please (you forgot Airstrip One, btw).

Please don't be unmutual, N. 6!

Let me put this in a way even you can understand. You are being a hypocrite.

I looked over my post again and clearly it's wrong for me to have brought up anti-Americanism (truthfully, I wasn't even thinking of that other poster).

Now, a decent person could have called that to my attention for correction in the space of one post without wasting two vague posts (and most of a third) before finally spitting out some vile tripe, and I would've corrected myself immediately.

Unfortunately, you show up with a high-and-mighty attitude and decide that a response much worse is in order. That opens you up to a charge of hypocrisy, and certainly your attitude here hasn't been very pro-American, which somewhat undermines the whole venture.

I regret using a stupid phrase carelessly, but I can't regret that you decided to be a complete fool.

I would say the founders of this country also distrusted government and did not believe that some problems should be answered by more laws, to the extent that they outlined the specific list of things that the federal government was allowed to do and left authority over everything else to the states or citizens.

The founders distrusted everyone but the elites - notice the electoral college. On that note, the Democratic Party election "reforms" in the 60s were not intended to spur on primaries, but rather caucuses because caucus-goers were thought to be more likely to have more energy and to vote for the same party in the general election.