What the United States Supreme Court Says

[MMI]

I don't think it's fair to call us revisionist. Why, our supposedly left-wing govenrment, that was elected on a good social democratic platform is more right wing then many Amrican movements. But, yes, knife crime is rising. And we are concerned. But we don't see the answer as being, Let's encourage everyone to carry a big knife so they can slash the face of anyone who they get scared of.

Anyway, knife attacks cause fewer deaths - especially accidental deaths - than do gun attacks.

And, yes, there is pressure to legislate more against knives. My son informs me that my penknife with a 3 inch blade is now automatically classified as an offensive weapon, which, if I carrry it in public could make me vulnerable to a term of imprisonment. I can't vouch for the truth of that, but the sentiment to restict knives that can be used as weapons exists. It is a fact that any knife can be classified as an offensive weapon in particular circumstances, and to carry an offensive weapon in public is a serious offence.

It appears that most kinfe carriers' weapon of choice is a small pointed kitchen knife, and I do know that there is a move to ban the manufacture of kitchen knives with sharp points - they must all have rounded or squared-off ends. Such knives are useless as weapons.

If it's not law yet, it will be.

I agree that criminals will use whatever means is available, and, I would go on to say, criminals will always get guns if they need them. But they won't bother if they don't. As I said, outside the drugs gangs here, criminals with guns are the exception, not the rule. Even in London's gangland, now being overtaken by Turkish gangs, knives are preferred to guns. No-one but the most dehumanised people want to kill when they don't have to. But just because criminals will break the law doesn't mean there should be no laws, does it?

And of course we shouldn't ban skateboards, or cars because they can be used to kill. No more than we should ban pencils, because they can be used to kill too, and God-knows-what-else. The reasaon they shouldn't be banned is because they are made to fulfil a specific and useful purpose: skating, drawing, driving. But guns are made to kill and have no other useful purpose.

its not our fault your government took away your right to own firearms

We're not blaming you, but if it had been your fault, we'd have applauded. We (most of us) are happy that guns are so restricted: we would gladly go along with stronger restictions, so we could enjoy ourselves and our freedoms without fear of armed lunatics or dangerous obsessives taking pot-shots at us. We didn't do it out of complacency, we did it because we realised guns were causing too many innocent deaths. It was positive action, and it works!

So far as the murder rate is concerned, I have quoted no statistics, but I understand most murder rates are quoted in percentage terms or some similar ratio, so it doesn't matter how many people are living in which country.

lets see what kind of near police state yu get when brittan reaches 300+million people if yu start banning everything george orwell wont have been that far off the mark is my guess

George Orwell was a very shrewd if cynical writer. And as Britian is the most watched nation on Earth, with so many CCTV cameras your mind'd boggle, he is already being proved right. We are a nation the size of Kansas - smaller, actually. The area of Great Britain is 81,000 square miles. Its population is about 60 million. That's 742 people per square mile. And we can all get along with each other, more or less.

The USA occupies 3,794,000 square miles and has a population of about 304,000,000. That's 80 people a square mile.

So your point is?

All countries have been subject to oppression by their leaders, and mostly, those oppressions have come at a time when the population was allowed to cary arms. It seems to me that the freedom to own arms makes it easier for revolutionaries and vigilantes to operate. Consider Russia and China as examples of the first. Consider also the American colonies, roused into revolution by seditious lawyers, greedy landowners and smugglers (all of whom were represented in your first Congress). Consider Stalinst Russia, Nazi Germany, modern Serbia and Zimbabwe today as examples of where government vigilantes have benefited form the right to bear arms.

Why was/is it that Russians, Germans, Serbians and Zimbabweans cannot rise up against their governments? Why is it that Americans could not overthrow Geroge Bush if he went bad? Because the government has all the weapons and resources it needs, regardless of how many guns the disorganised population has, to keep the people cowed and under control. Only with outside help is revolution possible, as virtually every succesful revolution that has occurred demonstrates.

Your government was created for reasons of individual greed disguised as noble liberty. Barely a third of colonials wanted the "freedom" to pay more taxes to the Continental government and fewer still wanted to fight for it until the rebels threatened to confiscate their lands and tar-and-feather them if they didn't. As an example of its duplicity, the American government has still not honoured its promise (given two, or three times) to restore land to Loyalists on the pretext that it might encourage some dishonest people to make false claims. They knew who owned the land before. They wanted to keep it for themsleves, just like Mugabwe's freedom fighters wanted white farmers' land in Zimbabwe. They had guns, so they got the land.

The right to bear arms to protect individual freedom is a fatuous self-deception. If you tried to stand up to your government, you'd fail.

As a Briton, I have not lost my right to defend myself. I can even use a gun to do so, if there is one handy. Don't be misled into thinking I can't. I don't have a right to own or carry a gun unless I live at permanent risk of murderous attack. No-one, except politicians and gang-land members do in this country. But I know that it is most unlikely that I will ever need to defend myself against a gun atttack because of our laws.

Thorne: I don't agree that this discussion is couterproductive. If there is one person reading this thread who is pro-guns, and a bigot, then he will realise that there is another point of view; and if he doesn't change his views (I expect to convert no-one) he will understand what our objectins are, and he might see how weak his own position really is, based on out-of-date liberties, paranoia, scare-stories and deliberate misreporting.


The links in Warbaby's post are not telling. They are gross distortions of the truth to promote a particular viewpoint: everyone's out to get the free American pioneer. It's all a load of bollocks - and that's a typical British understatement. Why, if denuseri is right, and you have the government you all want, are you so scared of it? Why do you think it's there to strip you of your hard-won freedoms? Why did you vote it in? Why don't you vote it out?

Your argument about UK statistics being manipulated looks to me very much like the writers are trying to manipulate them back again to something more to their taste. Murder over here is murder. We don't have 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder and so on. We just have murder. We have manslaughter too, to cover accidental killings that are somehow culpable - e.g., caused by negligence, but manslaughter statistics are usually coupled with, or appear side-by-side with murder figures. And if not, they are easily obtainable.

Plea bargaining does not happen in this country, and it would be regarded as a criminal offence if it did occur.

... in the UK [the Government] are trying to pacify their citizens into believing that the crime statistics are much lower than they are, in an effort to justify their loss of freedoms.

That's something they just don't have to do. If violent crime figures are up, they must get it down again - no question. But we don't want to be armed. That's a liberty we can do without, thank-you very much.

I am particularly disturbed by the concept of people who do defend themselves being treated more harshly than the criminals who attacked them. At least in this country, supposedly, the criminals are responsible for any outcome resulting from the commission of a crime. That means that, if two thugs invade my home and I kill one of them, the other criminal gets charged with murder, since the death of his partner was a direct result of their felonious assault.

That's not justice. That's not even rough-justice: your being acquitted would be rough-justice. No, to convict the other person of murder because you shot his accomplice is simply perverse! He might not even have been armed! He might just have been the getaway driver. It's this kind of vengeance is mine attitude that gives your country the reputation it has.

Under a fair legal system, if you killed the intruder because you were in reasonable fear that your own life was in danger from him, you would be acquitted. If you killed him, just in case, or, worse, just because he broke in, then you would be convicted of unlawful killing, whether that would be murder or manslaughter would depend on the circumstances - such as, was the intruder armed, and how did you come to be in possession of a gun ...

But let's face it, folks. It's much easier to rationalize the loss of your ability to defend yourself by decrying anyone who has the temerity to want to defend him or herself. It's much more difficult to admit, to yourself and the public, that, "Yes, if attacked I will protect myself and my family and even my property, with deadly force if necessary. I won't like it, and won't provoke it, but if it comes down to it, I will shoot to kill. And I will accept the sleepless nights and soul-searching that will come from taking another life. But I will also accept the thanks and love of my intact family."

That is so much boloney, it doesn't deserve an answer; but if I ignored it, you'd consider you'd scored a home run or something. I concede, in the first place that it's easier to rationalise peaceful freedom as preferable to at best armed neutrality, but probably suspicious hostility is what you really feel. But I don't deny the right to use deadly force (see the paragraph above), and Britons have the right to use deadly force if necessary, as I've already pointed out. I just think that owning a gun contemplates the use of deadly force before the need arises - which means you have the time to contemplate other less lethal courses of action. And it increases the probability - and in USA that's a racing certainty - that innocent people will also be killed - in a school or shopping mall, for example.

How many people who conducted murder campaigns in your schools, malls and colleges had previously had to use their weapons inthe situation you described, Thorne: where the killer's family were themselves at risk of death by an intruder, but were saved by the timely appearance of a gun-toting hero?

[MMI]

Oh.....WHERE to begin here.....

A, Number One, and First...i AM a law abiding, gun licensed holding, citizen of the US...i'm not sure where you are from, as you've chosen to hide your Location...

Great Britain

B, "Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you."

can you?? can you REALLY?? sorry, i'll take my chances....i want my odds to be 'even up' with the moron that climbs in my window with a rifle at 3am...

Yes, I am willing to make the promise because I am certain I am right. As for your nocturnal stand-off with a moronic intruder, I doubt the law will evenup the odds. He's awake - you're half asleep. He's expecting trouble, you're not. He's already armed, and gun is ready to use - yours is safely hidden from the kids, with amunition hidden somewhere else for safety reasons (hopefully under lock and key and in a fireproof safe). How much safer are you?

and C, "universal gun possession" was NOT what the ruling said...

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting", was what it said....those weapons have to be registered...

My understanding of "Americans" is everyone in America, including lunatics and criminals. That's what I meant by universal.

But I hate guns with a passion and if I'm guilty of misinterpreting the ruling, then so be it. I withdraw nothing

not sure what point you're trying to make...but i'll defend to the death, your right to make it...would you do the same for me?

That the right to possess firearms is bad law and probably a dangerous one. I'd defend any other right for you. But that one? Never.

[stripedangel]

Somewhere in this forum itself are posts that absolutely disprove the statement about crime rates and murder rates going down. If I'm not mistaken, and I have been before, I believe it was Australia where the crime skyrocketed after guns were outlawed. I also think England has very similar problems and many law abiding citizens there want their guns back.

I'm with you butterfly though I'm not sure I'd defend his/her, since I don't know which, right if it involved my death over this issue since he/she thinks guns are not vital to our well being as a free society.

Yep, and when you take away the right of the people to defend themselves, you give the criminal the freedom to commit whatever crime he wants, because they cannot take all of the guns off the streets without committing other acts that infringe on our rights. Nope, don't think so.

That whole line is a crock, about crime rates going down, and jeez, especially now when i can go on ebay and buy items directly from Hong Kong, or hell, for that matter, i can build a gun if i want one...or will my right to look at a blueprint (pattern, diagram, dunno what that would be called lol) for a gun become a crime too?

This matter is simply out of line altogether. If the people of the US actually wanted a gun ban, we would have figured out how to amend the Constitution in order to make it so. Some states have been allowing gay marriage...i know if that can be done, and the majority of Americans wanted it done, guns would be banned too. 300 years? OK i'm old fashioned anyway. Guns are traditional, if nothing else, and i like tradition. Guns are how this country was formed. i like knowing that i have the right to own one.

[_ID_]

I'm not sure I see any conflicts. You actually seem to have a very clearly articulated position on gun laws... though I'm not sure I see the reasoning behind some of them...

Thanks, I don't always state clearly what I mean. I'm conflicted because I also see the enjoyment of sport shooting and competitive shooting with the guns I would choose to have removed.

Why >8 inch barrels? And when you say "a gun in your home...", do you mean that one shouldn't be allowed to carry their gun around in public?

I think pistols don't have a use in the personal protection department. To get truly accurate aim (for the average person) the longer the barrel, the more accurate you will be. So having a pistol doesn't pass the logic test to me. I actually don't mind if someone has a gun in public, and a large rifle would look just dam silly carrying it around wally world, whereas a pistol is convenient, as well as can be concealed. Concealment of a weapon doesn't help you be protected, it just gives you a jump on the person trying to harm you.

Honestly though, I think the "not be automatic" part is pretty well taken care of. Not that an automatic weapon is one iota more effective of a killing device than a semiautomatic one...

People get automatic weapons for sport shooting, and shooting wildlife. I don't see the point in either with an automatic weapon in either of those situations as being functional. To me they are simply the for the sole purpose of spooging all over the gun range.

When I mentioned the part about someone saying you are qualified to use a gun. I mean that they themselves have met a minimum standard as well. Say expert shot on a target 50 yards down range with whatever classification of weapon you chose to be qualified in, to include zero safety incidents within a 5 year time frame. Something similar to the way we license people to drive cars now (though on second thought, perhaps it should be more stringent as we have some real ass-hats on the road today).

To the other posts ranting about the idiocy of the verdict I think I will just over look them, as they are based on anything but fact, reality or rational thinking.

[MMI]

To the other posts ranting about the idiocy of the verdict I think I will just over look them, as they are based on anything but fact, reality or rational thinking.

If that's aimed at me (I'm the only anti-gun poster here, it seems), I said the verdict was right. The Supreme Courst has clarified the law. And now it is clear, it can be seen to be wrong.

I reject your statement that my arguments ... no my "rants" ... are not based on fact, reality or rational thinking. I have repudiated wrong "facts" put forward by proponents of guns, and I have shown real examples of how gun controls work and are popular.

If it wasn't aimed at me, do I have a new friend somewhere?

[claire]

I refuse to live in fear. So I don't and never will own a gun or allow one in my house.

[denuseri]

Sorry MMI it just allways sounds like instead of debate the issue your trying to bash Americans and our way of life ,, one derogatory post after another, so I tend to get a little deffenceive and based on some of your opinions it looks like its a good thing we here in the United States did rebel and overthrow Brittish tyranny but thats not what this thread is about is it??

In any event I respectfully apologize if I take comments made about my country a little to close to heart.

I am out.

[Virulent]

I think the problem here is an inherent one in a written constitution which, like written scripture, ends up being seen as immutable.

The 2nd amendment is an amendment. I don't know how you can claim that the Constitution is treated as scripture; it has been amended dozens of times, as little as 16 years ago.

b) I am not aware of the Monarch of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth having any current plans to reinvade her lost colonies in the Americas.

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?

The trouble with the right to bear arms is that criminals can also bear arms.

Wait; the problem with making gun ownership legal is people who don't care about legality?

...the criminals get bigger guns so the police have to get bigger guns and so the criminals get bigger guns and ad infinitum.

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.

"criminalize guns and only criminals will have them"

To get truly accurate aim (for the average person) the longer the barrel, the more accurate you will be. So having a pistol doesn't pass the logic test to me.

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.

Concealment of a weapon doesn't help you be protected, it just gives you a jump on the person trying to harm you.

Whats wrong with that?

Why, if denuseri is right, and you have the government you all want, are you so scared of it?

I don't know, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Thatcher's U.K.

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.

[Thorne]

I refuse to live in fear. So I don't and never will own a gun or allow one in my house.

I'm with you, to a point. I also do not own a gun, and don't foresee owning one in the future. Though I have to admit, the way this country is going, having a gun in the house sometimes seems more prudent than not.

But that doesn't imply fear, just caution, just like wearing your seat belt when you drive, or having a life insurance policy.

And even though I don't own one, I still support the rights of others to own them, provided they are properly licensed and trained.

[Thorne]

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.

I have to agree with you here. Government, of any kind, is a necessary evil. And despite what many would have us believe, loving one's country does not, necessarily, require one to love those in charge of the government of that country. Or even to trust them. They are, after all, politicians: inherently untrustworthy!

[Warbaby1943]

I have to agree with you here. Government, of any kind, is a necessary evil. And despite what many would have us believe, loving one's country does not, necessarily, require one to love those in charge of the government of that country. Or even to trust them. They are, after all, politicians: inherently untrustworthy!

God is that a well worded and accurate statement.

[MMI]

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.

War against the individual is inherent in all state power.

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).

[Virulent]

(George Bush) would be unwise to declare war on individuals or the people as a whole ... because they'd vote him out.

MMI, do you really mean that? When a government inevitably develops into fascism, you vote that they stop and be nice again?

You are right though; this is more about anarchism for me than gun control. Perhaps I need to start another thread.

[Mr.FixIt]

i am a card carrying member of the NRA, and like Charlton Heston once said "You can relieve me of my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands"....

...or the local pawn shop! But it's still my decision.

[MMI]

MMI, do you really mean that? When a government inevitably develops into fascism, you vote that they stop and be nice again?

You are right though; this is more about anarchism for me than gun control. Perhaps I need to start another thread.

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.

[MMI]

i am a card carrying member of the NRA, and like Charlton Heston once said "You can relieve me of my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands"....

I missed that until MrFixit pointed it out.

All I can say is, be careful what you wish for, butterfly

[Virulent]

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?

[fetishdj]

The 2nd amendment is an amendment. I don't know how you can claim that the Constitution is treated as scripture; it has been amended dozens of times, as little as 16 years ago.

And yet there are several amendments which are considered to be immutable by the majority. The right to bear arms is one of them.

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?

I am making a joke.

Wait; the problem with making gun ownership legal is people who don't care about legality?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

[MMI]

So... what do you mean?

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.

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.

[MMI]

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.

[Virulent]

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.

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!

That government is best which governs least.

[MMI]

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.

[denuseri]

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.

[MMI]

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...

[Warbaby1943]

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.

[Kuskovian]

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".

[Thorne]

Police in many rual areas cannot repond to emergencies for sometimes upwards of 2-4 hours if at all.

Reminds me of a joke which, alas, has all too much truth behind it.

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.

[Virulent]

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.

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.

[Stealth694]

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.

[Wind_Walker25]

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!!!