God is that a well worded and accurate statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Printable View
God is that a well worded and accurate statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I'm sorry you think I'm attacking the American way of life. I'm not. I'm attacking a law which I believe to be so palpably wrong it amazes me so few here can see it. If I have offended the States or Americans in any other way, I apologise and take back whatever I said unreservedly.
Don't withdraw, denuseri.
Anarchistic nonsense. Mugabwe is at war against his people because he has no popular support now that Zimbabweans have withdrawn their approval. George Bush is not at war with his people because he does have power and needs popular support to retain it. He would be unwise to declare war on individuals or the people as a whole, not because they'd rise up in armed revolution, but because they'd vote him out (ignoring the fact he's near the ned of his term anyway).Quote:
War against the individual is inherent in all state power.
MMI, do you really mean that? When a government inevitably develops into fascism, you vote that they stop and be nice again?Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
You are right though; this is more about anarchism for me than gun control. Perhaps I need to start another thread.
...or the local pawn shop! But it's still my decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by butterflySlave4u
Yes, I mean it. The US government will not "inevitably" progress into a fascist dictatorship: it will be stopped before that happens, by the electorate in all probability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
I missed that until MrFixit pointed it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by butterflySlave4u
All I can say is, be careful what you wish for, butterfly
I feel like you're back-pedaling MMI, can you help me understand your rationale? You said: "(George Bush) would be unwise to declare war on individuals or the people as a whole ... because they'd vote him out." then you said "it will be stopped before that happens, by the electorate in all probability".
So I think I misunderstood you originally; you DON'T believe that you can vote out fascism, you instead believe that "it will be stopped before that happens, by the electorate in all probability", right?
So it sounds like you're saying that democratic governments never make it to fascism to me... but I don't think you could possibly mean that, the counter-examples being kind of obvious.
So... what do you mean?
And yet there are several amendments which are considered to be immutable by the majority. The right to bear arms is one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
I am making a joke.Quote:
Are you making a joke, or do you actually believe that the implicit right to revolution in American law exclusively refers to revolution against the United Kingdom?
No, the problem with making guns illegal is that criminals do not care about the law. The same goes for any registration system - there are always loopholes whereby someone who is determined enough can acquire a firearm, or drugs or anything they want. Though applied effectively any restriction should make things harder for the criminals to do this, just not impossible.Quote:
Wait; the problem with making gun ownership legal is people who don't care about legality?
Any gun will kill someone, no matter what the calibre. However, automatic weapons will kill more people far quicker. Sniper rifles will kill them at a greater range more accurately, targetting equipment improves (better scopes, more accurate rifling), stopping distances, rate of fire and risk of misfire improve and so on. The basic nature of a firearm has been unchanged for centuries (right back to matchlocks) but the basic model has been extensively refined over the years and is still being refined. Therefore there is always scope for improvements and this leads to an arms race between the police and the criminals.Quote:
Guns don't work that way; small-caliber low-quality guns kill far more people than large-caliber high-quality ones. One of the most hilarious examples is the recent onerous restrictions against owning .50 caliber rifles; weapons that have never been used in civilian conflict.
And as far as I am aware, most people keep their guns in their houses locked away (as regulations on gun use state) for safety and only carry them when they intend to use them.Quote:
In the United States, the average distance at which a firefight occurs is 7 feet, according to the FBI. Range and accuracy are functionally irrelevant in civilian situations. What is important is that your weapon have great stopping power, that you be comfortable enough with it that you don't panic, and most importantly, it must be comfortable to carry... if you don't have it with you at all times, it is proportionately less useful.
In a true democracy you should be able to affect government policy on a significant level. However, I do not beleive there is anything in existence in this world today that can be called a true democracy. They all have inherent bias in the system for one group or another. Political apathy is a sign of this - voting levels fall because the electorate do not beleive that they can have an influence, that one vote makes a difference.Quote:
I generally oppose government and law, period. I have no interest in supporting restrictions of any sort. War against the individual is inherent in all state power.
My personal belief is that the role of defending the populace is the job of the police force and the army. I am all for guns being allowed for sporting and hunting activities (though not sure about the use of automatic weaponry for this, where is the sport?) and even as a hobby or for professional use (farmers, for example) but I do not see the benefit in an individual owning a gun purely for home defense. I just see a greater risk of accident. Yep, sure, many are disciplined and trained enough to handle one correctly but how many out there are not? All it takes is one person, who may be fully licensed and registered, to go out there and shoot up a shopping mall because they had a nervous breakdown and couldn't take the pressure of modern life or because the pixies told them to do it. Its happened numerous times and many innocent non-criminal people died as a result. With a knife if you go 'postal' you might get one or two people before everyone gets the hell out of your range and calls the police. With a rifle you can kill many people very quickly before anyone even knows you are doing it and the police have a hell of a time stopping you because you can hole up somewhere secure and shoot anyone who tries to get close - at least until you run out of ammo and by then hundreds could be dead.
However, I also know that Pandora's box is open. It would be better if guns never existed (then we may be having this conversation about trebuchets or crossbows :) ). It would be better if nuclear weapons never existed. Hell, it would be better if human beings had descended from the nice, quiet monkeys who didn't get their kicks out of clubbing other monkeys to death with rocks and eating their children. However, if we had chances are we wouldn't be sitting here now. We'd still be in the wild wondering why those other monkeys are so mean to us. Yes, evolution has a dark side... To win the evolution game you have to be a complete and utter vicious bastard. Hence guns exist because we are still those monkeys at heart.
I am not convinced that now guns have been made legal in the US that it would be easy or even necessarily a good idea to ban them again. Some of the posts here demonstrate the strength of public resistance, for example. However, what I do think is needed is more education. Crime rates need to be tackled at the root rather than the stem. Kill one criminal and there are hundreds to take their place, take away the reason for committing crime and there is no need for criminals. Ok, maybe a nice idea of utopia and probably not 100% possible but a worthy goal nontheless. Education is also need around the guns themselves - education on use, risks and so on to minimse accidental deaths (which I know are already done but maybe they need to be improved?)
No solution would be perfect but there must be a good compromise out there somewhere...
I'm saying I believe that the government of the United States is unlikely to become a fascist dictatorship because there are sufficient checks and balances to prevent it. This means that, if the President decided to move towards fascism (or any other undemocratic philosphy) he would either be voted out, because the electorate would reject his policies, or he'd be forced out of office - by impeachment, perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
I also think that's the case for most "stable" governments - France, Germany, Australia and so on.
I believe some kind of coup would be necessary to install fascism in those countries.
Thanks fetishdj for saying things so much less contentiously than I have. There's little in your last post I would take issue with other than to say, if you've made a bad law, you should repeal it, not look for a compromise, because you won't find one.
I agree with everything in this statement other than the word "sufficient". I think that sufficiency is a judgment that can only be made in retrospect. I, for one, feel better the more checks and balances there are, to no end. The more policies and provisions there are to obstruct any legislative or executive action, the happier I am. Filibuster everything!Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"
It can be seen whether it was enough in retrospect, but (unless we adopt your attitude, that nothing is sufficient) we must make our judgement at the time. However, I would have been happy to write ... there are checks and balances ...
I understand the attitude that says governments should protect their borders and maintain the common peace, and do nothing else, but the strings of power stretch much further than that nowadays. Less is more is not a useful standard, in my opinion.
Facsim was elected to power in Germany legally if anyone bothers to look it up, not in fact put into power by a coup.
True democracy never really existed except mabey in its infancey and then only very briefly in ancient greece as far as western standards of it are conserned and even then it was a limited democracy in practice. Like vote for who you want your tyrant to be for the next few years. It had so many problems in Athens that it was revised by allmost every single ruler to suit his needs at the time, and only really fuctioned because it only involved about 10-30th "citezens" in the voting proccess. The Republican form of government that the United States of America adopted is more influence based on a mixture of some of the English and French systems modified from its Roman predessessors(which is one reason we have a senate). Who were in turn influenced by the greek colonists in southern italia that exposed oligarchial rule after the fall of athens to sparta in the thirty year peloponisian war. The Romans like ourselves (Americans) were in the proccess of overthrowing the tyrantical rule of what they considered a foriegn king when they made thier republic.
Unlike parlimentary systems of government that need a clear "majority" that must collect several multi party minorities to its side to rule,(like Brittian. Isrealand many others), America uses a "driect" representation method of government, in other words you vote for an individual representing his party, not a party that chooses an individual upon election, thus resulting in the need to consolodate in groups for strength makeing a basically two party system with many goals as oposed to a multi party system as we see in parlimentary governments.
As for the guns, Americans are divided on the issue to some degree, not as divided as we are over abortion but divided. The supreme court of the usa has only ruled that we have a "RIGHT" to bear arms that should not be infriged upon according to thier very learned interpetation of current constitutional law. I would not begin to say that these honorable men and wemon are 300yrs behind the times in anyway shape or form, our nation is a young one and only reached two hundred years in 1976 after a very long and ardourous amount of "reasearch" as to the BEST type of governemnt possible to function and yet preserve individual freedoms. of which the amendments to our consittution including the 1-10th were INSISTED upon by the majority of people of that age to be included in our consittution before they would all ratify it as law. If anything our governement system is a couple of hundred years ahead of most of western europes that is based on "old" dynamics raised out of fueadalism and modified by Cromwell to suit his needs when he overthrew his King.
The surpreme courts dicission is a modern interpetation of current law no more no less.
Maybe, on another thread, we could discuss whether Hitler's Nazi Party really was elected legally, but not here. What I really meant in my earlier post was modern Germany.
Here, in Britain, and I imagine for all other Parliamentary systems based on the British model, we vote for individual MP's, not for a particular party. That's not to say that people aren't elected because they belong to a particular party. Is that so differeent from your system? Generally, in Britain at least, but I'm sure also in many of the other Parliaments a single party has a sufficient majority to rule without the support of other parties. The present British Government has a clear majority and needs no support from anyone. However, coalitions do occur also.
As for the guns ... I agree with you that the Supreme Court merely declared what the law is. A law that was made some 200 years ago (give or take) is still in force, and the Supreme Court has now said what it actually means. I said as much earlier.
I also said it can now be seen to be a bad law. I dare say it was a good and useful law when it was first enacted, but not now. Now, no-one can give a convincing reason why it is a good law. I think the Supreme Court got it wrong by failing to interpret the law much more restrictively. That's my opinion, and I believe it to be a sound one...
There were many convincing reasons why it was a good decision. You, as you said, early in this thread, will never be convinced of that so it seems useless to discuss it further with anyone who feels as you do. I know it was the right decision and that is all that matters to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
One reason the second ammendment is still in place:
The ammendment when added to the constitution was very viable as the people of the nation were reluctant to relinquish thier right to defend themselves.
Defence including that from thier own government if nessesary; but, also against the any foriegn power as well as the native population and or any one intending them harm.
Sufficient means for any sort of law enforcement to be involved in the equation on the American frontier did'nt even exist but by the "self initiated" ,in any large scale format until the 1920s or there abouts.
Law enforcement response times have gradually increased over the years, yet the vast majority of rual Americans still own and maintain firearms for the purposes of hunting and or self defence. They do so for a variety of reasons, traddition, poor hope of help from emergency responders due to remote locations etc etc.
Self sufficiency has allways been an American rual tradditional pride.
Police in many rual areas cannot repond to emergencies for sometimes upwards of 2-4 hours if at all.
Quite naturally these people have a lot of vested intrest in protecting thier right to protect themselves and are amongst the many forces influencing the Surpreme Courts discission to up hold the law of our United States.
It all comes down to protecting our individual freedom to the rights of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for "ourselves and our posterity".
Reminds me of a joke which, alas, has all too much truth behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuskovian
Seems this man heard someone breaking into his tool shed in his back yard and called the police. The 911 operator, busy with many calls, informed him that it would be at least an hour before the police could show up.
Frustrated, the man waited a few minutes, all the time hearing the burglar rattling around in the shed. Then he called back and informed the operator that there was no longer any need for the police to hurry, as he'd shot the burglar and killed him.
Within two minutes, six police cars showed up, sirens blaring, and caught the criminal red-handed. Finding him uninjured, they arrested him, but the sergeant approached the home-owner, saying, "I thought you said you shot him?"
The homeowner replied, "I thought you guys couldn't get here for at least an hour!"
Sadly, this kind of attitude seems more and more prevalent in our police forces. Granted, some crimes are more manpower intensive than others. But when someone calls to report a break-in, failing to respond immediately puts the victim in an extreme state of risk. If we cannot depend on the police to arrive in a timely manner (and it's becoming increasingly obvious that we can't) then we have to take measures to protect ourselves, our families and our property.
Yes, property! While it's easy to say that property isn't worth your life, you are less likely to have to make that decision if the criminals have to decide if your property is worth their lives! In my opinion, my property, which I've worked hard for all my life, is far more valuable than the life of someone who believes he has the right to steal whatever he wants.
I'll second that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
To me the property is ancillary, though. Those who through violence or threat of violence impinge upon the sovereignty of others can all fucking die as far I'm concerned. :)
I also approve of the Supreme Courts Decision on the Second Amendment.
What I would like to see is, If a crime is commited with a gun, the criminal is looking at
the full sentance, No Good Time, No Option of Parole. If someone is shot add another 5 yrs to the sentance. If someone is Killed, then they shooter is locked up with no option of parole.
The Sad thing is most crimes are usually commited by convicts on parole, better to keep these violent people locked up, instead of just letting them out on the promise they have learned their lesson and will never do it again.
I do not own a gun, never did ,and may never own one, I do not care about the left or right, so throw that out the window, they both suck anyways, If we are free then let us be free, good ppl should be able to buy the guns they wish. war baby, amber these are good ppl, and should have all the rights promised to them, to many good men and women died for these right, and the Dems or rep, do noit have the right to take these away, So I may not think I need a gun, but to the others more power to them!!!
I am a gun owner, a Remington 30/30 Deer rifle, and a Browning Automatic Shotgun that was my dad's. And my basic belief is that the polivce and military should not be the only ones with guns.
However, I am for gun control. TO me the NRA is more radical than the gun control folks that want a total ban. All guns should be VERY hard to get and fully automatic assault rifles should be banned.
It is just tragic to me when (and I read about this a few months back) a child can reach into her grandmother's purse, pull out a handgun and shoot herself with it.
The part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court forgot was the "WELL_REGULATED" part of the amendment. Having a gun SHOULD be regulated and you should have to be trained in gun safety and licensed somehow.
My opinion here, of course.
I don't think they forgot that part. They just realized that it needs to be constructed as two different topics... topic 1, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", topic 2 "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
What the SCOTUS has finally affirmed is this disjunction; the people need not, and never needed to be, engaged in a militia in order to bear arms.
I was not referring to the Militia part. It is the "well-regulated" part. THAT is the part that people like the NRA and, in this case, the Supreme Court, failed to look at. Gun ownership needs to be "well-regulated/" Not just being able to walk in off the street and buy.
You cannot just eliminate part of the amendment. "A WELL_REGULATED militia . . ." The amendment was created to allow for TRAINED citizens to keep firearms in order to keep themselves and their neighbors safe.
It is part and parcel of the amendment. Therefore it was forgotten and not taken into account.
So I stand by my original posting.
I agree completely. You also can't change the order of the words in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
A militia must be well-regulated to ensure the freedom of the state.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Same topic, two different statements. It never says that the people should be well-regulated. In case it isn't clear; that's the point I'm trying to make. No regulation of citizen ownership is implied or required in the 2nd Amendment.
Thanks for pointing that out. I thought such was the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
Then why is the part about the militia in the amendment? The amendment implies that BECAUSE we need a "WELL-REGULATED" Militia citizens can own firearms. That also implies that the militia and the citizens comprising the militia will be trained.
You see that is the problem, the amendment can have several different interpretations. The Conservatives on the court go the way of the radicals at the NRA, but it DOES mean they ignore a portion of the amendment.
Any student of history would know that what was MEANT by the amendment was to allow citizens be able to protect their towns and farms from foreign (at the time British) intervention by forming Militias, trained and regulated. That meant long guns and muskets.
And militias are comprised of individuals, of people. Therefore the people are trained and "regulated."
So people should be allowed to have machine guns, tanks, RPGs, etc. without any training or regulation of who these people are that have them? That is madness to me.
I'm afraid that 4 of the supreme court justices may have had similar logic. Too bad it wasn't a more unanimous decision. However, it was the correct one.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
As I said below, it is two statements (grammatically, a 'complex sentence'), on one topic. The Founding Fathers did this frequently. For example, the 7th article of the Bill of Rights states:Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
That is clearly multiple statements in a complex sentence, dealing with a single topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bill of Rights
I agree with you that Militia is a subgroup of People. I don't follow you from there though. By your rationale, any law which acts upon a subgroup of people also acts upon people in general. Example:Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
A House of Government is compromised of people. Therefore, people are required to keep a journal of their proceedings, and from time to time publish the same. Yes, that's right, BLOGS ARE MANDATORY!Quote:
Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution, Section 5
Yes, I do believe that there should be no regulations or requirements, except that which individuals choose to apply to themselves. I call it anarchy though.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
I for one am glad they havent taken the often only recorse for defence that i would have available if attacked, pepper spray and martial arts wouldnt get me very far in defending myself from most men bent on harming me.
"God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal."Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Now you know how I feel about guns but men will never be equal to women. They have all the, err shall we say, power. What they don't control isn't worth having anyhow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
lol, where is all this power guys i aint feeling it lol,, i think they gave it all to the dommes ,,,pouts, oh well, as a slave i wouldnt really want it any other way,
goes out to the back forty to blow away some beer bottles and scare the liberals
protecting my owners property (me) by deadly accurate force if nessesary
Maybe you should blow away the liberals and keep the beer bottles. They at least had a useful purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
OH yeah, that power that all women have is lower than the your naval right about where your legs come together at the top.
One of the EXACT reasons I am a Liberal and FOR gun control. Because if a conservative nutjob comes for me because he hates me because I believe different from him and he can't stand that I will meet force with force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbaby1943
Warbaby, you may have been kidding, but there are a lot of nutjobs out there that aren't. I am a live or let live type of guy. Most Liberals that I have met are.
The problem with COnservatives is to get along you have to believe JUST as they do.
You mean 1708? Nothing like a little hyperbole.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
You probably think that it was a bad idea that the English yeomenry owned longbows too. :D
------------------------
(more)
Now that I've read more of this thread... it's too much like religion. One believes what one believes and no arguments will sway one from their beliefs.
So my parting comment is that I believe heartily in gun control... because you can't hit what you're aiming at unless you can control your weapon. ;)
So... I'm not sure whether the 2nd amendment demands it or not (Debating the constitution is rather pointless in my opinion. It was vague on purpose). But either way, don't we HAVE gun control laws? I mean, in most states there is a three day waiting period, you have to have license, you can't own certain guns until certain ages, concealed carry licenses are harder to get, and you can't get one if you have a criminal record... and you can't get automatics anywho... so... what is the point of this argument?
Those who proclaim to want gun 'control' are, actually, more interested in complete prohibition (among law-abiding citizens, at least) than in actually having working, effective controls. The last thing they seem to want is intelligent people, with training and understanding, being able to defend themselves. They seem to think that allowing criminals to run rampant over unarmed people, robbing, raping and even killing them, is far preferable to the possibility that some law-abiding citizen might kill one of the criminals!Quote:
Originally Posted by MissElizabeth87
Now this is what is called a "sweeping generalization." It is not even NEAR to being true. I am a gun owner, I like guns, and I don't want the government to be the only ones with guns. But I am for the banning of assault weapons, greater controls on training and regulation of guns. Many of my friends feel the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Your inflammatory statement sounds more like NRA propaganda. The NRA is the organization that goes into areas touched by gun violence and proclaim the benefits of guns to the people dealing with the tragedies of that violence. And they want us all to have grenades and RPGs and M14's so that our kids can be killed. (Now you see THAT is another sweeping generalization, just as inflammatory and wrong-headed as your statement. At least I KNOW it is wrong-headed. I am sure the NRA has many members who are level-headed and realize that we need more controls on guns.
Oh yeah, they are called Policemen. Most police organizations are FOR gun controls.
:-)
Why this leaves you smiling I don't know. Police obviously want to reduce the number of guns that citizens have; this makes police more necessary. One of the overriding goals of the State is to maintain a monopoly on the use of violence, so that the resistance to their initiatives is limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
If I disagree with, for instance, the income tax, I could choose not to pay it. Soon the police will come, and attempt to use the threat of violence to compel me to accept whatever punishment the State deems fit. Obviously the police would prefer if I was unarmed; if I had a weapon designed to punch through bullet-proof vests and kevlar helmets, the police would have to question the necessity of using violence to enforce the will of the State against me.
How many police officers are willing to risk their lives to ensure that the gore-encrusted cogs of the State machine keep turning?
Wow. First killing Liberals and now killing cops. Perfect reasons for having controls on guns.