Likewise, it may also be the case that many Americans are, like yourself, unable to distinguish between the right to self defense and the right to violently avenge themselves against anyone suspected of infringing their property rights. And I'm not just referring to a few bikies, mafia soldiers and deranged adventurist revolutionaries, but entire swathes of the non-criminal class."
[WS;] This is arguably one of the most lucid statements in this entire thread. The lunacy of American political discourse comes to a plain view when the gun ownership rights are mentioned, but one need to be an outsider to see this.
What I find ironic about a typical American male is that sundry shysters and rich people can spit in his face and he will say it is raining, but as soon as someone touches his fetishes - guns or football - they protest violently and even stage a demonstration. Case in point - swindling large segments of the American middle and working classes out of their homes and jobs while bailing out those responsible did not produce any acts of popular resistance, but sacking a popuar football coach who covered up a convicted pedophile resulted in riots. Likewise, a mention of legislation to tighten background checks resulted in a small army of gun nuts ready to "march on Washington."
I see no useful purpose of private gun ownership in a civilized society, but given the fact that some 300 million guns are already in private hands, I see any claim that restrictions on gun purchasing will reduce violence as delusional. A far more effective approach to reducing violence in the US is to address the culture of violence and its root causes - but that would offend the sensibility of many liberals, so they prefer to take a safer course and focus on the gun fetish. This is, btw, from the people who came up with bussing as a "solution" to class and race problem in the US.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."