The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland?

The concept of land ownership by the so-called "original inhabitants" was different from that known by Europeans. The "original inhabitants" often fought and burned their neighbors villages and commandeered their possessions and land until they, themselves were beaten by yet other tribes, sometimes related to them.

Perhaps, if the native Americans had 'invented' the wheel or the gun they would have had a better chance against the 'whites' and other Indian tribes.

johntreed.com/headline/2010/11/24/did-whites-steal-natve-american-land

I see, Zimmy. So the fact that the "Native Americans" helped the Puritans through the first winter with food, medicine and counsel etc.. counts for little in your eyes since the former had no 'invention technology' to show for themselves, nothing to compare to white European 'civilization' is that it?

Therefore, as soon as the natives could prove themselves the whiteman's "equal" (whatever that means!), they would have been worthy of respect, and hence, of living, eh?

One shudders to think how you would handle lepers, the gravely ill or others too weak to be of productive use any longer. The Nazis thought the same thing and they are scarcely role models of humanity!

"other Indian tribes" besides the "native Americans" and who would they be? Zimmy, do you even read what you've written before posting it?

No, that's not it but continue to 'assume' additional self-serving opinions as is your ignorant right.


.....and so you do.


You show an immodest knowledge of American history. Are you really unaware of the many different Amerindian tribes who often fought against each other?

Hope this helps.....from "500 Nations":
500nations.com/tribes/tribes_state-by-state.asp
(the title "500 Nations" may be a hint)

Don't try to justify your ignorance! I am as aware of that as I am that black Africans in Africa also traded their own black slaves, but that doesn't make it right either! No group is morally superior to another.

If you're not saying that Native Americans were not equal to the white settlers (as I "assumed", thank you), what then are you saying, pray tell?

When I was young I briefly dated a woman who claimed to be of Kickapoo Indian origin (I'm an equal opportunity dater).
She referred to me as her "Totem Pole" :)

...and some of your best friends are Jews, blacks and Asians, but that hardly answers my post now, does it-:) Some of my best friends are equal opportunity bigots, so there y'are, sue me!

lol

Back on topic, did the Europeans' introducing guns and other fire arms to the Native Americans necessarily improve the latter's lot? Were their lives somehow impovrished without them? Weren't they in fact only useful as a way for the Native Americans to defend themselves against a race of invaders who shouldn't have been there in the first place??!

That's the zillionth time we've all heard that addressed. You cannot believe how archaic those types of redresses are.


That statement contradicts itself, but as I've often said, "with liberals everything is relative."


Another hizzy fit? I don't need the money because I don't pay my "fair share" lol.


Mixed blessing but the Amerindians always sought "the white man's gun" which they also used against other Indian tribes.


Who's to say who was supposed to be where? Were Indian tribes who exterminated other Indian tribes morally correct?

Kennewick Man?

...any more than black-African slave traders on the continent trafficking either in their own or (even) in white Europeans. No, Zimmy, there IS no moral relativism here - there never is!!! What's your point?

You, among some others here, 'feel' that the great American continent belonged, 'in some ownership fashion' to a group of people often identified as "Indians" or "Amerindians". That belief assumes that some great indigenous tribe called "Indians" (sic) owned this real estate like some kind of deed. That is disproved by the Amerindians own customs and deeds.

The "evil white man" was just like the "evil red man"; only better equipped with technology.

edit: As to first settlers in the Americas, Kennewick Man presents a puzzle.

You're in part correct, Zimmy! Even I'll give ya that much-:) As regards the latter, yes, it remains an anthropological riddle, fair enough. As far as the first part of your argument, the fact is that right of primogeniture take precedents over any "later" arrival who, absent title search, due diligence etc. claims rights over land inhabited by others. Face facts. It's the old Canarsie Indian story about the guy who buys his dream house in good faith, but forgets to do a title search. Well, one fine morning in May, Big-Chief Canarsie comes knockin' on neighbor Jim's house and says, "Sorry, fella! This ain't your house!" An example of a false deed to land improperly claimed, not through inheritance, but through purchase of sale.

So, the plot thickens a bit, eh?

While I realize too that imputing European standards into a Native American context is fraught with problems, we're stuck with those problems, aren't we, and therefore have to try to resolve them, as long as it takes.

I'm officially claiming that Kennewick Man was really Kennewicki Man; a guy who set sail from Poland on his way to England (for a job) but got lost. He was swallowed by a big whale who regurgitated him on Coney Island. Kostek Kennewicki then fought his way across the continent decimating one Indian tribe after another. He fought Chippewa, Navajo, Kickapoo, Nex Perce, Seneca, Choctaw, Cree, Shawnee, Dakota, Delaware, Fox, Hopi ,Huron ,Siouan, Comanche, Mohawk, and finally Mohegan Indians, indeed the last of them. Only the Abenaki Indians escaped his wrath because the tribe name sounded Polish.

Since it took him 50 years to make his way from the eastern to western shores of America, he was able to sire many many children. Amerindian women couldn't resist him. He died while defending himself against hundreds of jealous husbands who later paid homage to his heroism (He killed 300 before they got to him). If only he'd had a gun.

I would.

Here's a look at individual tax rates and shares by income in 2007, the most recent data available from the Internal Revenue Service:

The top 1 percent: Americans who earned an adjusted gross income of $410,096 or more accounted for 22.8 percent of all wages. But they paid 40.4 percent of total reported income taxes, an increase from 39.9 percent in 2006, according to the IRS.

The top 5 percent: Americans who earned $160,041 or more accounted for 37.4 percent of all wages in 2007. But they paid 60.6 percent of the country's total reported income taxes, up from 60.1 percent a year earlier.

The top 10 percent: Americans who earned at least $113,018 paid 71.2 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 70.8 percent a year earlier.

The top 25 percent: Americans who earned at least $66,532 paid 86.6 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 86.3 percent a year earlier.

The top 50 percent: Americans who earned at least $32,879 paid 97.1 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 97 percent a year earlier.

The bottom 50 percent: Americans who earned less than $32,879 paid 2.9 percent of the nation's income taxes, down from 3 percent a year earlier.

Also notice that those listed in the top bracket here can in no way be viewed as 'super rich' or anything resembling it...There is a 'super rich' category, but you won't find these listed on any IRS tab-sheet.

usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/who-pays-most-income-tax.htm

But other factors must be taken into consideration here, as these are individual tax rates/percentages as reported by IRS:

We also have numerous state and local sales taxes;

We have various government licensing fees, from cost to register a car, to cost of business/vending licenses/permits...These are a form of tax.

We have various inflations/deflations of the purchasing value of the US dollar, another form of tax.

Interest rates on loans, another form of tax.

Cost of waging foreign wars, an extremely exhorbitant form of tax.

In addition, corporate/financial entities have the use of extremely sophisticated 'instruments' to hide/move and even create money...Whether one would consider such instruments a form of taxation on the working population or simply a form of extortion/larceny/counterfeiting is simply a rhetorical question.

Back to guns. IMHO, an individual law abiding citizen has the right to own a firearm for self protection and sporting purposes...Criminals will own firearms in any case...Common sense would dictate that a gun owner should have instruction in the proper handling, maintenance and storage of said firearms.

I wonder what those in Oslo think of guns right now?
It only takes one sick fcuk with a gun to do damage and look what happens. He also had three guns registered to his name. Guns cannot be managed. People cannot be trusted.

Armed camp counselors could have saved dozens of lives on the island that day. Norway's restrictive gun laws are to blame for the high casualty count. Unarmed peeps are helpless sitting ducks and killers know this and target them.

yet they are not useful as a way for the decent citizens to defend themselves against a bunch of criminals invading their personal territory, is what you're saying?

Nott, I'm simply saying that your argument cuts both ways. Should people be allowed to protect and defend their home? Obviously. The question is whether arming all citizens, as with arming all passengers on planes, necessarily the panacea we've been looking for. A hunting rifle, used for that purpose only, should be a stop-gap measure, not merely an excuse for some yahoo in the middle of Nowheresville, USA to go off their nut at the slightest provocation!

Llamatic, at the risk of seeming totally lame brained, would armed campers been a better solution? Where do we draw the line?

At least one trained and armed camp counselor could have saved many lives.

A bunch of little kids playing with firearms??? Do you realize what you're saying??!

In the sand, across which you do not....

Hey look the councillor just shot the postman!

Let’s arm Postmen as well.

Hey look the postman just shot that pitbull................and a small child.

I understand collateral damage but this is a bit much arm the kids.

Hey look little Joey just shot the Councillor.

thanks.


Been discussed over and over, sometimes I just don;t see the point to punch the keyboard.... First, it's not about arming all citizens. It'a about allowing 'all' citizens to carry guns. 'All', because there are obvious exceptions.

As for panacea, there's enough evidence that concealed weapons do diminish the crime rate dramatically. This will not solve all problems, but no other solution even faces this challenge ever, to be a panaceum. Seems unfair, like.


Not sure I am following you here... You mean when people owned guns just as a matter of fact, they shot at anybody who happened to look not quite happy, and this possibly due to the presence of the gun owner? Or that they readily excused those who reacted that way?


etc. Barney, freely armed society is neither a gun-nuts utopia, nor a phenomenon unique to few states of the notorious USA. All countries used to be like that. No historical evidence whatsoever of any actual specifically gun related problems in them.

Show me where I said a bunch of little kids should be armed, playing with firearms, shrill liar. :s

and now an incident in Seattle and another in Texas. The U.S. can keep its guns, Poland doesn't need them. As I said earlier- Poland is civilized.

Good video Malopolanin; it should be must viewing for the gun afraid-y cats.


Was that the talk in August 1939 in Poland?.........of course, a gun became a most valued commodity after that...........

People who want to confiscate legal guns are the same people who know 'what's best for the rest of us'. Too much sugar, too much salt, restrict this, restrict that......it goes on-and-on. Evidently, they don't have much faith in people to make their own decisions.

No wonder they love BigGovernment.

Firearms shouldbe strictly regimented and controlled, available to hunters, target shooters and other sporstman who have never been convicted. Domestic violence is much worse in the US than in Europe because of guns. You can more easily duck a swinging lead pipe or even an axe than a bullet, esp. sicne the domestic assialant is usually under the influence and has poor coordination. As for armed crime, the sentence should be doubled whenever a firearm is involved.

Were my family and I living in an unprotected or dangerous area. then the mere presence of a hunting rifle as show of force would doubtless be necessary. Trouble is, way too many people shoot first and ask questions later. Standards across the board for gun use should be at least as stringent as driving license regulations-:)

There was an armed policeman there. He was shot dead too.

And should be part of school curriculum.

The armed policeman's (who was shot dead) gun training didn't stop the tragedy. School curriculum or not.