"Hahaha. That's funny. The Second Amendment is the only thing protecting the other 26."

OH, PLEASE...

The majority of Americans do NOT own guns.

The 2nd Ammendment is all well and good, and go ahead, have your right to bear arms.

But making the case that the 2nd "protects" ALL the other Ammendments is absurd...

Or are you going ro argue that the 13th (Abolishing Slavery) is upheld by the right to private gun ownership?

Or Women's Suffrage--how does the 2nd protect THAT?

Or changing the voting age--how does the 2nd help HERE?



Typical Right-Wing rhetoric...the 2nd's all well and good, but quit acting as if the 2nd Ammendment is the be-all and end-all of American Constitutional law...

..obi..

What do you expect from a GunFighter........ZOING!! Gottem Coach.

On this whole subject in general and the liberty of expression in particular, I will cite Karl Popper: "“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

If something exists without taking anything from you, I don't see why you would want to take that away from someone else. Be it sexual orientation or anything else. Your freedom is only limited by the freedom of all others.

For what is likely the first time I'm forced to agree with Maple.

American's put way to much stock in the amendments, and constitution. As such some things are a much bigger deal then they need be. While other things, aren't a big deal at all. See Gun Rights, when compared to invasion of privacy. You seem plenty of outrage about both, however the government would get ripped apart if they took away gun rights. But is still doing fine while limiting privacy.

Concisely you American's are way too passionate about certain parts of your treasured freedom, and really need to chill out.

":Hahaha. That's funny. The Second Amendment is the only thing protecting the other 26."

I don't think you know what the other 26 involve, otherwise you wouldn't make such an absurd statement. We already know that you don't give two hoots about issuing fisa warrants under the flimsiest of pretenses or torture for that matter, because anyone under surveillance is obviously a terrorist, unless of course they actually have guns then it's *big gubmint is taking away our guns. liberty freedom freedom liberty liberty*.

"That's what blacks in the south did. They got with their buddies, bought guns, and had a neighborhood watch system to protect themselves from the KKK."

Proof? And obviously it's a great solution to demand that victims of terror arm themselves to the teeth instead of making common sense gun and speech laws that protect society from racist thugs.

The rest of civilized world doesn't buy the gun nutter argument that their unfettered arsenals of dangerous weapons is keeping America "free", and with good reason. Having roving bands of untrained paramilitaries isn't doing anything but increasing crime and violence while surveillance, torture, and police harassment continue unabated.

@damian:

Depends on who's doing the "riopping apart":

Take away a woman's right to privacy--duck and cover, can of worms, incoming!--and you can BET there'll be masses of women (and men, and I'd be with them on this 100%) furious at the government and wanting to tear them a new one in the Midterms and General Elections...



Though it IS funny that gun ownership is traditionally defended the fiercest by the "Red States," and these are the same states that voted, by and large, for a President who enacted the Patriot Act (proving once again that a good name can make ANYTHING sound patriotic and wholesome rather than potentially-intrusive and an abuse of power...)

"Take away a woman's right to privacy--duck and cover, can of worms, incoming!--and you can BET there'll be masses of women (and men, and I'd be with them on this 100%) furious at the government and wanting to tear them a new one in the Midterms and General Elections..."

This is already happening. Where've you been? States are passing reactionary anti-women laws across the country. In Ohio they passed the damned heartbeat law. Texas did something similar. They arrest pregnant women for falling down the stairs in many states. In Georgia they proposed a law that would criminalize miscarriages.

2nd ammendment isn't needed

@Obi

I suppose. While I'm not entirely versed on American law. (Mostly because I consider learning more then I have to be a waste of my time. Being as I am neither American, nor do I have a desire to travel there.) However a Women has about as much privacy now as a man does in America, yes? Meaning stepping on Women's privacy, specifically it would be a violation of Women's Rights. And people standing up to a government that tread on the amendments. Rather then a government that did something despicable.

That's really the crux of it. Take away privacy. Ease of travel. Stuff that skirts the edge of the constitution and you don't get much of a reaction from the American public. Put a toe on the constitution and everyone is pissed all of a sudden.

It's irrational and contributes to a toxic political atmosphere.

Agreed, the Patriot act as a whole is pretty funny. Mostly in how Americans who shout about freedom were willing to just stand and take it. (Personally I don't have a huge problem with losing some privacy for security, but American's are the ones who love to talk absolute freedom.)

http://www.alternet.org/story/150526/10_states_with_the_most_shocking_anti-woman_legislation

Also, guns kill women and are pretty much never used in self-defense. Guns protect exactly nothing.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm

Edit: Ah thanks Putin. I don't keep up on America very much. Or at all. Looks like governments just edging around the constitution again to avoid public outrage. Or at least that is my perspective.

Oh there is quite a bit of public outrage. You just don't hear about it because the US media only covers fake protest movements like the tea party and perhaps Canada wants to believe all Americans are knuckledragging barbarians. There are actually progressive Americans and womens groups trying to do something about this.

Not to say we haven't given Canada good reason to think that...just saying

I do have an intense distaste for the USA, which certainly makes me more then a little biased. However I do know there are some progressive american's. I'm sure they are doing all they can to prevent such laws.

My impression is that their doing so is akin to green party protests and rallies in Canada, next to no media attention, and not enough base to make a difference when compared to the larger groups.

Suffice to say, I dislike a sizable chunk of the US legal system and its implementation. American domestic and foreign policy and most everything else. While I'm sure there are reasonable Americans, they either aren't a sizable percentage, or don't do anything to fix the nonsense.

Anyway apparently I misinterpreted a post Draugnar made a while back in which someone complained about anti-Semitism and Draugnar said to "deal with it", but the context was that previous appeals to ban hate speech have fallen on deaf ears so it is pointless to complain. So I apologize to Draugnar for my bad memory.

Guillaume:
Popper? Damn! What's your life story mate? I didn't know we had that many philosophers here!
Also: what's with the French name. Es-tu français?

@Putin: Sadly, just as many Canadians are dumb enough to think all Americans have guns and have some sympathy for the Tea Party, too many Americans tend to forget that we have a very "right wing" government in place, with 4 out of 10 Canadians wishing they lived in the "good ol' south". The story is a touch different in Québec, where I would venture that it's more likely to be 2 out 10 that share the political and moral values of the American right wing parties, but still...

Well there was historically large protests at state capitals across the country after the anti-union laws were proposed in Ohio and Wisconsin, with the Wisconsin capital being occupied for weeks and the Democrats fleeing the state to avoid voting for that horrible law. Republican overreach has the progressive movement on the move, and there will be in a big fight in November to repeal the unpopular anti-union bill in Ohio and we're likely to win that. I've also attended a women's rights rally after the heartbeat nonsense was passed, which got good attendance.

And to be fair to my Canadian friends, America has always been a center-right country and we elected a fairly progressive President in hostile conditions. Meanwhile the left is the majority in Canada and after Harper's abuses of power you gave him even more control over your country. My European friends have even bigger problems with a variety of far-right governments in Switzerland, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, and elsewhere. We have Obama as our chief representative at the end of the day. Get rid of your own reactionaries and lend some solidarity to help us get rid of ours.

4 of 10 Canadian's eh? They should do the rest of us a favour and move there. That way we wouldn't have this ridiculous conservative party government here. That said our right wing party is fairly centralist, even with Harper in charge, I follow politics normally and we haven't had much the in the way of massive changes.

I'd be glad to get rid of our reactionaries, we don't have many of them. Even our conservatives are fairly progressive socially.

It's a shame you have such a distaste for America, damian...though I can probably concede the reasons valid...

Just as you say there are some more progressive Americans, I think foreign nations often overlook that these are the United STATES of America...

So it depends what state you go to:

I get the feeling most folks from Canada or Europe would get along pretty well with folks from New York or the New England area, and I know some immigrants--one from England--who loves it here in California.

At the risk of over-generalizing...

Pacific/Atlantic Coasts=Pretty agreeable with foreigners, for the most part...

And the further "in" you go towards "Middle America" and "The South," the more and more foreigners seem disgusted, with somewhere like Texas--sorry, Thucy!--being something of the perfect example of a State foreigners would hate, for so many obvious reasons (not the least of which being that King George I and II are from there.)

Ever read the Nine Nations of North America? It's pretty interesting. Redivides the map along economic/cultural lines with the US and Canada. The maritimes go with New England. The Rustbelt/Industrial areas of the midwest/midatlantic go with Ontario. The mountain west goes with Alberta. Etc.

Nope haven't read it. Though I don't altogether disagree with their generalizations. The nations described do seem to sort of exist. Though some area's of Alberta would fit better with the bible belt.

Yeah distaste would probably be the right word. It is my ardent hope that America crashes and burns viciously. First off so it can collectively lose the ego it has developed and second so it can be rebuilt into a better country. With less idiotic lawsuits and everyman for himself attitude. I think genuine hard times/collapse might finally bring some of the older ideals back of helping your neighbours and being decent human beings who cooperate for survival. That said I'm not particularly going to enjoy the suffering that American's would go through if America crashes and burns.

I guess I would to an extent agree with you Obi. Though I don't really dislike most individual American's a large part of America's collective ideas/identity really drives me batty.

Huh...sounds interesting, Putin...

Where is California grouped in?

With British Colombia, at least northern Cali is. Part of southern I think is grouped in with the Southwest nation.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21226

Oh, HELL no...

I don't want to be grouped in with Arizona and New Mexico and that lot! :/

Nevada...is mostly the same, but at least there's Vegas, but YEESH...

Northern California got the better deal there (they always do, and San fran is such a cleaner city than LA...WHY couldn't I be there right now?)

Oh, NO...

They have us lumped in with part of TEXAS??? :O

FAIL!

Los Angeles and Dallas/Houston/Fort Worth are about as far apart socially and economically as you GET!

Connecting us to Mexico makes sense, we basically ARE one big, blurred border between the rest of the US and Mexico, and I'll buy Nevada in there, too...but come on! TEXAS? No!

Dude..houston is like right where the Dixie Breadbasket and Mexamericans meet...and I have to say ....that is pretty true...

And Obi...just remember...California is there because of Texas...and people argue the United States still would of got Cali even without Texas but come on...who really knows what would of happened...With History..Texas is officially why the U.S. achieved Manifest Destiny...so even if you dont like the people..dont hate on the state..Show some Respect..

The book goes into detail about all of these areas. It is pretty fascinating. It was written in the 80s, the author correctly predicted the redistribution of economic power from the industrial areas and New England to Mexamerica and the South. The chapter on the islands is especially interesting because of his description of the drug trade and why Florida is such an ideal transit point.

I was just curious where the native Americans fit in with this repartitioning?