They don't know because most people don't know most things.

You probably don't know 0.1% of relevant American history (I know I don't). That you happen to have known who Andrew Jackson was is just simple coincidence.

You're very correct about PC not stopping shit (in the context of the USA). They have constitutionally protected free speech so they can say what they want with very few exceptions.

To understand the wording of the second amendment, you have to take into account the history behind it. I'm not sure how familiar you are with American history, but this scholarly article is a great read on the topic, and demonstrates that guns have been kept and regulated (the most important terms of the amendment that often get completely overlooked by guns rights advocates) by Americans for both personal and collective defense since the Colonial period.

It's important to note that the Revolutionary War was literally started at Lexington and Concord when the British government, "Came fer our gunz!" That event informs a great deal of the rhetoric, and it is not at all an exaggeration to say that had the British government successfully disarmed the populace earlier, the Revolution might never have had a chance for success.

Regardless, there are an overwhelming number of legal precedents now that support the notion that the Constitution allows guns to be owned by U.S. citizens for self-defense purposes. That horse has long been out of the barn, so arguing that the constitution does not specifically use the words "self-defense" is a complete waste of time. What is not a waste of time is arguing how far the government (state and federal) can go in "regulating" the sale, carrying, and use of firearms.

> 7 MYTHS You Still Believe About AMERICAN History

FTFY

Please take an American history class not taught by Glen Beck. Many Americans would certainly be called 'refugees' by today's definition, many being forced to immigrate by the crown, and many more escaping religious and cultural persecution. Those that came by pure choice were few and far between.

The second amendment is intended to ensure freedom against our own government, and to remove the expensive, often culture destroying requirement for an ever expanding standing army, and since the industrialization of warfare has made little to no sense.

Please don't pretend you speak for 'all your generation and older'. You don't...and I'm incredibly glad you don't, because what you describe is a nation of Trumps. Thank Science his followers only make up 1/4 +- of the quickly dying party, so likely <10% of the population...and that 10% is made up entirely from the 25% of us that are intellectually and emotionally retarded.

No and yes. Its the violent and warmongering western policy in that region. We have always destabilized it, yet have learned nothing from it. We just keep going and then wonder why its getting worse. Its a neocon policy. Easy to stop, many people have already said what the solution would be, yet there are always the powerful neocons who live from fear mongering, suffering and wars. And of course from blind following people like you who support them.

2003 was just another puzzle piece. The support of extremists in Syria too, the support of them in Libya aswell. The support of Saudi Arabia is a very big puzzle piece. The CIA operations in that region just as much.
The support of Saddam Hussein also is another small puzzle piece, just as much as we made him think that he can attack Kuwait and we wont interfere. He thought that because we allowed him and instigated him to attack Iran, then supported both sides, because we wanted to destabilize that region once again. Did I mention the coup detat in Iran yet?
And its not that we werent warned about it. Lots of smart people said that giving the Jews Israel would end in disaster. The signs were easy to spot. Lots of people warned about an Iraq war in 2003. Even the neocons own people warned about the IS in documents, yet they ignored it and kept going, strengthening it even more. People warned about what would happen to Libya after Ghaddafi was gone. Again they did not care. Lots of people warned about what was going on in Syria, that Assad was confronted with an extremists group long before the "revolution" that is now known as Al Nusra, a branch of Al Kaida. What did they do? They weakened Assad. Lots of people warned about the refugee crisis and extremists flooding into Europe among those refugees. What do they do? They open the borders and let everyone in without any checks at all, even inviting the whole world to come, ignoring actual laws.

You see, good knowledge of history is mandatory to understand cause and effect. You dont have that knowledge, as you have proved already, because you try to marginalize it by including things from centuries ago and try to solve those with the same solutions from centuries ago. But I dont blame you, since youre probably American. American history teaching is as messed up as their foreign policy.
You cant see coherences in all that. Lots of people dont. Thats why we are doomed to repeat history.

I mean just look at the policy since 9/11. It was meant to bring us all more security from terrorist attacks like that. Yet it has only become worse. Extremists are stronger than ever before and keep getting stronger with everything we do to "weaken" them. And yet people like you dont ask themselves why, actually attack people like me who have realized whats wrong.
Intelligent species my ass.

Well, the guy was lucky to have the scene captured on video. But I don't see his problem with the supposed confederate flag.

Playing a bit of the devil's advocate here... but I'm sure most people here understands it anyway.

Why do they hate the confederate (battle) flag so much? It makes no sense. Do they just hate because they want to hate? I hear these excuses saying that it's a symbol of hate or racism. Yet I don't. I don't see it as a symbol for those two. I see it for what it is, the flag that people associated with as the confederate. I see historical value in it.

The people who are angry over a mere flag needs to wake the F up. The people who are hating it needs a reality check. That flag and its symbol has been a part of history for many years. It has represented a part of American history that should not be forgotten. These flags should not be taken down just because people are angry or hating over it. As long as the confederate flag is flown below the American flag, I am fine with letting it be displayed.

I'm surprised these young ones don't know about the Pax Americana. This video made it sound like they don't teach any modern American history at all in school. What, do they stop at the war of 1812?

I understand your discomfort with my phrasing. My beef is with the electoral college system.

While I was getting my degree, I took some really good American History and Government classes at college. The prof in the Govt. class really went into depth explaining the electoral college to us, and to me the shittiness of that system was just shocking. For example: (none of this is news to a truly informed voter or an interested person with an internet connection, but it WAS news to me when I was ~20 years old, and I think it still would be news to a really high percentage of US voters)

* First is the very idea of an electoral college. The only way to become president of the US is to win the most electoral votes. But voters don't cast electoral votes, the people of the electoral college do. OK, the electoral college is supposed to follow the votes/will of their state/constituents (more on that next), but the fact remains that literally/practically, our votes as citizens don't matter. Only the electoral votes count. So yes, in the most literal sense ... NONE of our votes "matter".

* In general, the "electors" (the people on the electoral college) are supposed to cast their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in their state / district. I think 2 states (Nebraska and Maine?) divide up their suggested electoral votes to be as close as possible to the actual proportions of the popular vote, but that's a whole other issue. Anyway, in general the electors are supposed to cast their vote for the popular vote winner in their state. BUT, that process isn't automatic. The votes that actually matter, the electoral votes, are cast by fallible human beings -- and they might "go rogue" and vote against what they are "supposed to" do. That is called a "faithless elector". That would be bad enough if it was just some weird loophole that technically exists but has never actually happened in practice, but actually faithless electors happen fairly frequently. The only upside is that they haven't ever changed the outcome of an election. Yet.

* When we're young and in civics type classes in school, we're brainwashedtaught about Democracy as a very simple, will of the public, one man one vote system. The electoral college shits all over that. One can win the popular vote but lose on electoral votes, and that actually has happened multiple times (not just to Al Gore). In my opinion, the electoral college creates a laundry list of problems (swing states are the only ones that matter, so campaign there and ignore everybody else, etc. etc. etc.), has very few benefits (any supposed benefits of the system are tenuous at best), and is completely contrary to the core concepts of Democracy.


Without the electoral college, a blue vote in Kansas would matter, as would a red vote in Massachusetts. Or a vote for a 3rd party or independent, anywhere. With the electoral college, edge cases like any of those can be safely and easily ignored by candidates.

I think it is unlikely that Kansas would turn blue, even if all of the democrats voted. That being said, we're not a complete LOCK for red; heck, out of the 10 most recent Governors we've had before we turned into Brownbackistan it is an even split between Democrats and Republicans with 5 each. And actually the Democrats had significantly longer total number of years in the office.

So basically, I don't actually think that a vote cast on a losing candidate is "pointless", I just think that the electoral college system does a really good job of making sure that some votes are more pointless than others. It amazes me that there wasn't a MUCH bigger stink made about it when Gore "lost" in 2000, but I guess voter apathy can overcome any challenge to the system.

You want to talk about trivial stories getting media coverage?

Yesterday, the island of Vanuatu was all but destroyed by a cyclone. 24 people confirmed dead, tens of thousands left homeless and "the development of the country wiped out" but what was the headline on NZs largest news site (and bear in mind that NZ is the closest developed nation to Vanuatu)?

Some d-list celebrity said something mean on a reality tv show, and the country lost their shit.

So, when someone threatens "the deadliest school shooting in American history" at your speaking engagement, that is not "faux victimhood". That is genuinely fucking scary.

Bad shit happens to people every fucking day and it's not deemed newsworthy. If you really want to get pissy about it, why does this one womans awful experience merit more support than the 200+ schoolgirls that are still missing?

The answer is that it's not a zero sum game.
I can say that I feel that the representation of women (and non-caucasians while I'm at it) in video games is pretty bad and should change.
I can also say that this woman had an awful experience and I wish it hadn't happened.
And I can also say that I sincerely hope those girls don't get sold in slavery.
And a million other issues of social justice, environment, etc.

Some of those are more important than others. Doesn't mean the "lesser" ones should be ignored.

@VoodooV yeah, gamergate pissed me off. It should piss you off too, unless you like being lumped in with a bunch of misogynist neanderthals. They are making it an embarrassment to be called a gamer.

Here's a link (which I meant to post in my original rant.. apologies)
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/10/15/sarkeesian-utah/

@speechless, this goes way beyond your average internet trolling. There have been specific threats made against people, including posting their addresses on twitter and then saying "I know where you live and I'm coming to get you" etc.

The worst part is that story from the link. This asshole threatened "the worst school shooting in American history" and he got what he wanted.

@gorillaman, you're either an idiot or you're trying to be funny. Either way, you fail.


Oh, and just in case anyone brings up the "ethics in games journalism" thing... even if gamergate ever was about that (which I don't believe for a second), it's certainly not now, and supporting it is akin to supporting the Nazis because of their stellar public transport....

ooooh shit.nice one @ChaosEngine!
since many here have already pointed out some nice perspective and historical context,allow to just add two points to this fine thread:

1.the real question has little to do with race.that is a canard that is shoved down our throats constantly and while many still buy into that bullshit,many of us are waking up to the fact we are having are chains jerked.the problems do not lie with race or culture but rather between the powerful and the powerless.

2.i hate to break to those folks who identify with the term "white" but that term is just a politically manufactured term created in the mid the late 1600's,that term had never been used before...ever.the term was politically created to manipulate poor european indentured servants to identify more with their much more privileged and wealthy european plantation owners,in order to dominate and control a growing african slave population.

thats a lil tidbit they tended to leave out in american history but without it the civil war doesnt make a whole lot of sense.

i mean think about it:we were taught that the civil war was basically about states rights.
yes..the states right to have and keep slaves and continue into the newly appropriated land (actual STOLEN,from mexico).

so how do you get a poor,penniless white person to go fight a war so their wealthy counterparts can keep their slaves?which would directly affect their employment options and henceforth keep them jobless and penniless.

you convince them the color of their skin is what matters most!
a political ploy that worked brilliantly.

@lantern53
i say this with all humanity and respect:
stop...juuuust stop.

i have watched you over the years butcher american history and politics,there is no possible way you have the extremely complicated,diverse and contradictory situation that is the isreali/palestinian conflict understood.

at least enough where you can offer anything substantial.
nope.
nada.
no way..jose.
and my all time favorite:

man getting pushed off a cliff....

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Congratulations! Your video, Jon Stewart lays into American history, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!

Your video, Jon Stewart lays into American history, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.