A message to our Leadership in America

[MMI]

In England I think there is only one minister in parliament that practices Islam, but that has not stopped the people that are born of Islam faith practicing and imposing Shari law in the UK in certain comunities. I would also think that if it can happen in a small country such as mine, I am in no doubt the it is probably happening in the USA in secret. The British authorities have tried to stamp out the practice, because it goes against the UKs basic laws, but I am afraid the people born of the Islam Faith have little or no respect for any ones laws but their own. I am also afraid to say that not all but most living in the free world, think that they are the chosen people, and have been openly sticking their fingers up at government’s, both American and the UKs since 9/11. Just by looking at the UK news every night, the Islam people are causing so much unrest, that before long in the UK they will end up being victimised. As SadisticNature has pointed out, to Islam your Constitution is for Americans and not them, because they are only Americans and English when it is convenient for them, it is sad but true.

As a matter of fact, ian, the British authorities see this as a positive development and are happy to see tribunals set up to resolve disputes between members of ethnic/cultural groups in a manner that is acceptable to those traditions. "Legal pluralism" is a concomitant part of a multi-cultural society and goes a long way to maintaining harmony, whereas a decision by a normal court would impose an "English" solution to the problem, and alienation could result. There are "courts" of this type serving the Somali, Islamic and Jewish communities at least; there are probably others I am not aware of based on different traditions. I would add that the British government rejects any attempt by these tribunals to decide matters relating to the criminal law.

If you are having difficulty with this idea, perhaps you should consider the various jurisdictions within the United Kingom: there is English Law, Scottish Law and Northern Irish Law; or the USA where there are 50 different legal systems (actually, there are more, if you count the hundreds of Indian reservations, and the overseas territories). People living within those jurisdictions can regulate their affairs according to their own customs and cultures, and there is no danger of disrupting the nation as a whole.

I suggest that the Islamic people you refer to as "causing so much unrest" fall into two categories: (1) those who are intent on destroying or Islamifying British society (fortunately a very small number, but significant) and (2) those with brown faces who come to the attention of Daily Mail readers and members of UKIP or BNP (a much larger number of people who will do no harm to anyone).

[steelish]

In England I think there is only one minister in parliament that practices Islam, but that has not stopped the people that are born of Islam faith practicing and imposing Shari law in the UK in certain comunities. I would also think that if it can happen in a small country such as mine, I am in no doubt the it is probably happening in the USA in secret.

It doesn't have to happen "in secret" in the U.S. They can practice their religion right out in the open! The U.S. is full of ethnic and/or religious communities. BUT, for the Islamic faithful to take over the U.S. and impose their beliefs and Sharia law upon the Americans would be unconstitutional, and that is what I was referring to. Unless they become the majority in the U.S., and simply because of the very behavior you mention, they will probably remain in small groups in communities - rather than in positions of power.

Unfortunately for the law-abiding Muslims, the Jihad believers have ruined it for them.

[Lion]

A mod is free to put this post on a new thread since it really has nothing to do with the discussion. I just want to clarify a common misconception

It doesn't have to happen "in secret" in the U.S. They can practice their religion right out in the open! The U.S. is full of ethnic and/or religious communities. BUT, for the Islamic faithful to take over the U.S. and impose their beliefs and Sharia law upon the Americans would be unconstitutional, and that is what I was referring to. Unless they become the majority in the U.S., and simply because of the very behavior you mention, they will probably remain in small groups in communities - rather than in positions of power.

Unfortunately for the law-abiding Muslims, the Jihad believers have ruined it for them.

I get what your point is here, and agree with it. The only thing I disagree with is the term "Jihad Believers".

Jihad Believers, Jihadists, etc are terms that people have tossed around in the last 10 years without really knowing what it means. The literal translation is Struggle. In a nutshell, protecting the faith of Islam. Be it from within or external.

The faith of Islam is different then what these monsters claim to believe in. As a Muslim, they have no real association with my faith, and have stolen words to brainwash others around them, words like Jihad. I hate all "Jihad" terms used to describe a terrorist, because 1) it becomes okay for the general public to use the word as a negative word, when for me, it holds an important meaning, and 2) it strengthens the resolve of people who are labelled as "Jihadists" or "Jihadist believers", by using that term a lot, you are in essense telling Muslims around the world that either you believe Jihad is part of your faith, and you are with them, or Jihad is evil, and you are with us.

Jihad on occasion, does incorporate fighting for Islam, when Islam is threatened, when it's followers are threatened. It does in no way mean killing the innocent, and you won't find that anywhere.



Sorry for the interruption, everyone can go on with the discussion

[MMI]

It seems to me that all legislation by the British Parliament regarding fundamental rights give the power to determine the meaning of those laws to the Secretary of State or the courts, and, occasionally, to a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation or the like. None of them, so far as I am aware, depends upon a plebicite. This applies to Conservative government legislation as well as to Labour government laws, so I think I can say, in answer to your question, All of them.

Referenda here happen as often as ducks' teeth fall out, but when they do take place, they have no binding force: the government is free to ignore the will of the people if it wishes. I can imagine that many Conservative politicians would be comfortable with that.

[EDQ]

you go. that is gerat. and true every word.you need to sent to more ppl.
i have more to say. but you konw my spelling. let me put in to words and i'll send

[IAN 2411]

As a matter of fact, ian, the British authorities see this as a positive development and are happy to see tribunals set up to resolve disputes between members of ethnic/cultural groups in a manner that is acceptable to those traditions.

I am in no doubt the British authorities allow [ethnic tribunals] to be set up within those communities. But they have no legal standing in the UK, and all findings must be presented to a British court to have the final say. I would like to point out that it has not stopped honour killings, and there have been a spate of those in the UK as of late, and also underage marriages in certain communities. Also there are still the arranged marriages, where a British subject is spirited away to India against their will, and that really is sticking your finger up at UK law. The UK is a very racially tolerant country, but it is the ethnic groups that are abusing our tolerance.

If you are having difficulty with this idea, perhaps you should consider the various jurisdictions within the United Kingom: there is English Law, Scottish Law and Northern Irish Law; or the USA where there are 50 different legal systems (actually, there are more, if you count the hundreds of Indian reservations, and the overseas territories). People living within those jurisdictions can regulate their affairs according to their own customs and cultures, and there is no danger of disrupting the nation as a whole.

On the contrary MMI, I have no difficulty whatsoever with the idea, and I agree to a degree on what you have said. However Sharia Law has no minimum, what is said is done and sometimes to the extreme, it has no place in the civilised world. There is one thing however the three legal systems in the UK that you mention are all governed and overseen by Whitehall, although their laws might vary in certain ways. I also believe that there are as many legal systems in the USA as you say with their own laws, but I can understand why, as most states in the USA are bigger than most whole countries in Europe and Asia.

It doesn't have to happen "in secret" in the U.S. They can practice their religion right out in the open! The U.S. is full of ethnic and/or religious communities. BUT, for the Islamic faithful to take over the U.S. and impose their beliefs and Sharia law upon the Americans would be unconstitutional, and that is what I was referring to. Unless they become the majority in the U.S., and simply because of the very behavior you mention, they will probably remain in small groups in communities - rather than in positions of power.

Unfortunately for the law-abiding Muslims, the Jihad believers have ruined it for them.

I agree with you 100%


Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

Its actually; according to the latest Surpreme Court interpetation, for you as a law abiding citizen to have a way to defend your life liberty and or property from harm from any source of contention.

[Bren122]

The second Amendment reads;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it is clearly within the framers' mind that the right to bear arms derives from the notion that this right descends from the effectiveness of a militia- which paralels similar English legislation of the time. it should be noted that, technically speaking, the (English) British did not have a standing army until the 1870s- no such entity legally existed. where British and American practice diverged was in the 1800s pursuit of western exploration and colonisation by the US in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase; the Mexican and American War; and the Oregon Settlement. Militias were not feasible on the new frontiers but the personal right to self-defence against various agencies (Amerindians, rustlers, bandits) meant that maintenance of a right to bear arms no longer derived from keeping an effective militia. this required a change of thinking from that which had maintained in the 1770s when the constitution was originally written, largely inspired by English Enlightenment notions of political theory.
I am not arguing for a day to day re-interpretation of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. while the left is pushing a political agenda that claims, in part, to be the sole representative of progress, the right is stuck in the mud trying to present a united front and backing away from supporting any change. the moderate right needs to redefine itself as a supporter of sensible progress even if that means alienating its more radical members. then it can more effectively challenge these unnececessarily liberal interpretations of what progress actually means. using the constitution as a buttress against change, when it is clearly designed to be open to changes of interpretation and necessity, is simply playing into the hands of the liberals.
whilst the M303 is illegal, this is by no means the sole interpretation of a grenade launcher. a look at some of the ammunition types being developed in Europe and North America for even 5.56mm calibre weapons include several 'exploding' bullets. one bullet being developed for the .50in Barrett rifle, itself deadly in the hands of an expert to over 2 kilometres or one and a quarter miles, by a niche company include flechettes that deploy inside the body. to have to name every bullet or weapon that you want banned, as opposed to effects produced, means a greater focus is placed on a universal ban- which is precisely what happened in Australia.

[steelish]

The second Amendment reads;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it is clearly within the framers' mind that the right to bear arms derives from the notion that this right descends from the effectiveness of a militia- which paralels similar English legislation of the time. it should be noted that, technically speaking, the (English) British did not have a standing army until the 1870s- no such entity legally existed. where British and American practice diverged was in the 1800s pursuit of western exploration and colonisation by the US in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase; the Mexican and American War; and the Oregon Settlement. Militias were not feasible on the new frontiers but the personal right to self-defence against various agencies (Amerindians, rustlers, bandits) meant that maintenance of a right to bear arms no longer derived from keeping an effective militia. this required a change of thinking from that which had maintained in the 1770s when the constitution was originally written, largely inspired by English Enlightenment notions of political theory.
I am not arguing for a day to day re-interpretation of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. while the left is pushing a political agenda that claims, in part, to be the sole representative of progress, the right is stuck in the mud trying to present a united front and backing away from supporting any change. the moderate right needs to redefine itself as a supporter of sensible progress even if that means alienating its more radical members. then it can more effectively challenge these unnececessarily liberal interpretations of what progress actually means. using the constitution as a buttress against change, when it is clearly designed to be open to changes of interpretation and necessity, is simply playing into the hands of the liberals.
whilst the M303 is illegal, this is by no means the sole interpretation of a grenade launcher. a look at some of the ammunition types being developed in Europe and North America for even 5.56mm calibre weapons include several 'exploding' bullets. one bullet being developed for the .50in Barrett rifle, itself deadly in the hands of an expert to over 2 kilometres or one and a quarter miles, by a niche company include flechettes that deploy inside the body. to have to name every bullet or weapon that you want banned, as opposed to effects produced, means a greater focus is placed on a universal ban- which is precisely what happened in Australia.

Actually no. Thomas Jefferson stated "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Just because the Second Amendment happens to have a preamble doesn't diminish the fact that the granting of this right to the people is perfectly clear. When our Founders intended to specifically refer to the militia or the states, they used those words. Look at the Tenth Amendment, for instance: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It becomes even more clear when you look at other instances where the Founders used the language "the right of the people." Like in the First Amendment, for example: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Or, in the Fourth Amendment: "the right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The first clause of the Second Amendment, which discusses the necessity of a well-regulated militia, is a reason why the people have a right to arms. It's a perfectly good and sufficient reason, but it't not the only reason, and it doesn't change who has the right.

Consider this sentence:

"Being a fisherman, Joe needs to buy a boat"

Does that mean that Joe should buy a boat only if he fishes for a living? What if Joe also likes to water ski? Being a fisherman is a great reason for getting a boat, but it isn't the only reason and, in fact, it doesn't even have to be true.

Likewise, the militia clause of the Second Amendment doesn't have to be true for the rest of the amendment to stand. What if a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state? We are pretty secure and still (kind of) free these days, but we don't have a functioning state-militia system. Perhaps the Founders were wrong – maybe the only thing necessary to security is a nuclear-defense umbrella, a strong navy, and just plain good luck.

Does a constitutional right go away simply because one of its percieved benefits no longer exists? Of course not – no individual right depends on the government's actions. That's why the Declaration of Independence made clear that the rights we were fighting for were those we were "endowed with by our creator" instead of some elected bureaucrat.

[DuncanONeil]

Steelish, basically very well put. However there is one fundamental flaw in your post. "We don't have a functioning state-militia system". This is a bit wrong, the National Guard is a functioning state militia system!

Actually no. Thomas Jefferson stated "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Just because the Second Amendment happens to have a preamble doesn't diminish the fact that the granting of this right to the people is perfectly clear. When our Founders intended to specifically refer to the militia or the states, they used those words. Look at the Tenth Amendment, for instance: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It becomes even more clear when you look at other instances where the Founders used the language "the right of the people." Like in the First Amendment, for example: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Or, in the Fourth Amendment: "the right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The first clause of the Second Amendment, which discusses the necessity of a well-regulated militia, is a reason why the people have a right to arms. It's a perfectly good and sufficient reason, but it't not the only reason, and it doesn't change who has the right.

Consider this sentence:

"Being a fisherman, Joe needs to buy a boat"

Does that mean that Joe should buy a boat only if he fishes for a living? What if Joe also likes to water ski? Being a fisherman is a great reason for getting a boat, but it isn't the only reason and, in fact, it doesn't even have to be true.

Likewise, the militia clause of the Second Amendment doesn't have to be true for the rest of the amendment to stand. What if a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state? We are pretty secure and still (kind of) free these days, but we don't have a functioning state-militia system. Perhaps the Founders were wrong – maybe the only thing necessary to security is a nuclear-defense umbrella, a strong navy, and just plain good luck.

Does a constitutional right go away simply because one of its percieved benefits no longer exists? Of course not – no individual right depends on the government's actions. That's why the Declaration of Independence made clear that the rights we were fighting for were those we were "endowed with by our creator" instead of some elected bureaucrat.

[DuncanONeil]

The amendment states, as you note, that a well regulated militia is necessary.
But! In order to insure that said can exist a right is granted, not to the militia or state but to "the people". The language of the amendment is clear and can only result in one understanding.
In case my position is perceived as my own personal bias against your personal bias you can find an English language analysis from an expert at teh following location. http://www.largo.org/literary.html

The second Amendment reads;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it is clearly within the framers' mind that the right to bear arms derives from the notion that this right descends from the effectiveness of a militia- which paralels similar English legislation of the time. it should be noted that, technically speaking, the (English) British did not have a standing army until the 1870s- no such entity legally existed. where British and American practice diverged was in the 1800s pursuit of western exploration and colonisation by the US in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase; the Mexican and American War; and the Oregon Settlement. Militias were not feasible on the new frontiers but the personal right to self-defence against various agencies (Amerindians, rustlers, bandits) meant that maintenance of a right to bear arms no longer derived from keeping an effective militia. this required a change of thinking from that which had maintained in the 1770s when the constitution was originally written, largely inspired by English Enlightenment notions of political theory.
I am not arguing for a day to day re-interpretation of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. while the left is pushing a political agenda that claims, in part, to be the sole representative of progress, the right is stuck in the mud trying to present a united front and backing away from supporting any change. the moderate right needs to redefine itself as a supporter of sensible progress even if that means alienating its more radical members. then it can more effectively challenge these unnececessarily liberal interpretations of what progress actually means. using the constitution as a buttress against change, when it is clearly designed to be open to changes of interpretation and necessity, is simply playing into the hands of the liberals.
whilst the M303 is illegal, this is by no means the sole interpretation of a grenade launcher. a look at some of the ammunition types being developed in Europe and North America for even 5.56mm calibre weapons include several 'exploding' bullets. one bullet being developed for the .50in Barrett rifle, itself deadly in the hands of an expert to over 2 kilometres or one and a quarter miles, by a niche company include flechettes that deploy inside the body. to have to name every bullet or weapon that you want banned, as opposed to effects produced, means a greater focus is placed on a universal ban- which is precisely what happened in Australia.

[Bren122]

A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

The majority of the continental congress did not want a large standing army or navy; many did not want an army or navy AT ALL (and I believe Jefferson was one of these). this is a distinctly English import- the refugees from Cromwellian England were well aware of the dangers of military dictatorship and the dangers of a standing army. the subsequent triumph of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution convinced the people of England that no army was stronger than the will of the people- they are wrong. governments are only overthrown from within when they lose the support of the military.
the militia system was seen as an answer to the problem of a military coup and defending the nation. the right to bare arms clearly derives from this principle.
the western expansion changed the basis for this thinking. a militia force was not feesible and a standing (and woefully underfunded) army could not be everywhere. people still needed to defend themselves so the thinking behind the right to bare arms changed.
now the idea that when faced with the vast array of technology and weapons platforms available to the US army, navy and air force, combined with a dictatorship willing to go to any lengths to ensure its position, that 20 gumnuts in Idaho or Montana armed with an arsenal of all kinds is going to resist is laughable. fighting to the death to preserve their access to any weapon or ammunition they deem necessary is moronic.
the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?
the sorts of weapons that the right are defending access to are a crutch to the nutjobs on both sides of the debate- a fall back position so that they don't have to compromise. about the only justification for these weapons' widespread proliferation is to defend against our friends up in the mountains of Idaho and Montana when they get sick and tired of waiting for the "World Government" to make its move and decide on a pre-emptive strike as at Oklahoma City.
i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense.

[steelish]

A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

Our government should "fear" us...as in, have a healthy respect for us. But it does not. They do not fear us at all at the ballot, but the next election should change their minds.

The majority of the continental congress did not want a large standing army or navy; many did not want an army or navy AT ALL (and I believe Jefferson was one of these). this is a distinctly English import- the refugees from Cromwellian England were well aware of the dangers of military dictatorship and the dangers of a standing army. the subsequent triumph of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution convinced the people of England that no army was stronger than the will of the people- they are wrong. governments are only overthrown from within when they lose the support of the military.

No. Governments are overthrown when they lose the support of the PEOPLE. Are you implying that the only reason Americans haven't forcefully overthrown the government is because of the armed forces?

the militia system was seen as an answer to the problem of a military coup and defending the nation. the right to bare arms clearly derives from this principle.

It derives from the Founders realizing that power corrupts, and the right to bear arms is not only a way to add balance to our nation...but how likely is it that we will attacked on our shores when many citizens can rise up in arms and help our militia? Anyone with weapons in their home is a potential protector of America.

now the idea that when faced with the vast array of technology and weapons platforms available to the US army, navy and air force, combined with a dictatorship willing to go to any lengths to ensure its position, that 20 gumnuts in Idaho or Montana armed with an arsenal of all kinds is going to resist is laughable. fighting to the death to preserve their access to any weapon or ammunition they deem necessary is moronic.

You might find it laughable and moronic, but there are many in the U.S. who would fight to the death for that right. If the government ever overturns the Second Amendment, God help America.

the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society.

Hmmm, that certainly doesn't happen in MY neighborhood!

just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?

You're speaking of a .50 caliber sniper rifle. They cost over $10,000. There are very few citizens with rifles of that caliber. AND, the government knows exactly who has them. I agree that they are unnecessary to the average citizen, but like I said, the government knows who has them because of all the restrictions placed on such weapons.

i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense.

And I never thought you were arguing against the right, just pointing out that your interpretation of the Second Amendment was off.

[Bren122]

Our government should "fear" us...as in, have a healthy respect for us. But it does not. They do not fear us at all at the ballot, but the next election should change their minds.

and both sides say that before every election.
all governments fear the people; that is precisely the problem. rather than doing what is right, too often they do what is popular. that's why your budget is pushing a deficit of $2trillion. we increasingly measure the concern of a government on an issue by how much it spends and not on how much it actually helps.

No. Governments are overthrown when they lose the support of the PEOPLE. Are you implying that the only reason Americans haven't forcefully overthrown the government is because of the armed forces?

where a regime/ government maintains the support of the army it maintains its hold on power. name one revolution that has succeeded where the army has stood by the government.
What was the civil war if not an attempt to overthrow the elected government of the United States? why did it fail- because the army remained true to the union.

It derives from the Founders realizing that power corrupts, and the right to bear arms is not only a way to add balance to our nation...but how likely is it that we will attacked on our shores when many citizens can rise up in arms and help our militia? Anyone with weapons in their home is a potential protector of America.

the success of British/English colonised societies relies on a common written language and the belief in the rule of law. Canada, New Zealand and Australia do not have the 'right to bare arms' and have done as well in building societies. any reading of the history of the early US makes it clear that the founding fathers feared one thing above all- a military dictatorship based on a standing army. it was why so many of them were opposed to Washington being the first president. disbanding the continental army and establishing the militia was the primary goal of the second amendment at that time.

You might find it laughable and moronic, but there are many in the U.S. who would fight to the death for that right. If the government ever overturns the Second Amendment, God help America.

even if it is the will of the people? because that is the argument i am trying to make. very few people believe that gun ownership is an absolute wrong; by the same token very few see the need for military style weaponry in civillian hands. it was the same argument played out in Australia and guess who lost- because it was the will of the people.

Hmmm, that certainly doesn't happen in MY neighborhood!

Well i could have used the old lefty ploy and made political mileage out of the frequent rampage shootings in America but i thought that it would be self evident that the ability to do so was more aptly made with the example cited.

You're speaking of a .50 caliber sniper rifle. They cost over $10,000. There are very few citizens with rifles of that caliber. AND, the government knows exactly who has them. I agree that they are unnecessary to the average citizen, but like I said, the government knows who has them because of all the restrictions placed on such weapons.

and its the few who feel the absolute necessity of owning such a weapon that scares the crap out of the rest. a recent report on Military Intelligence.com said that, at some points in the calendar, there were more Barretts in the hands of civilians than in the army in the US.

[steelish]

What was the civil war if not an attempt to overthrow the elected government of the United States?

The South was not attempting to take over the U.S.

[steelish]

even if it is the will of the people? because that is the argument i am trying to make. very few people believe that gun ownership is an absolute wrong; by the same token very few see the need for military style weaponry in civillian hands. it was the same argument played out in Australia and guess who lost- because it was the will of the people.

And I agree...a civilian should not have military style weaponry. But I do not really want the government messing with our right to bear arms. What they need to do is place tighter restrictions on such weapons.

[DuncanONeil]

And I agree...a civilian should not have military style weaponry. But I do not really want the government messing with our right to bear arms. What they need to do is place tighter restrictions on such weapons.

This is not a complaint.
The toughest weapons go to two kinds. Collectors, I think we can all presume they have no intent to go on a killing spree.
And the bad guys. The bad guys are concerned with two things in a fire arm. Rate of fire and is it concealable.

[steelish]

and its the few who feel the absolute necessity of owning such a weapon that scares the crap out of the rest. a recent report on Military Intelligence.com said that, at some points in the calendar, there were more Barretts in the hands of civilians than in the army in the US.

I don't have a Barretta (I assume that is what you're referring to) nor do I have a .50 caliber rifle (thank God) but I do have a very nice CZ 75BD. I know I'm being cheeky now, but I can't help it. Most people who don't understand seem to think that gun owners are "shoot 'em up" type people who will take wild pot-shots at anything and everything. (possibly because my neighbors dog shit in my yard) But nothing could be further from the truth. I abhor violence but I am not so stupid as to not be knowledgeable about guns and gun safety.

[DuncanONeil]

and both sides say that before every election.
all governments fear the people; that is precisely the problem. rather than doing what is right, too often they do what is popular. that's why your budget is pushing a deficit of $2trillion. we increasingly measure the concern of a government on an issue by how much it spends and not on how much it actually helps.

Currently the budget is pushing $2 trillion because the administration has determined that giving monies to their friends is good for the country. It may also be because they believe that all of the country's money belongs to the Government.
How well off do you think you would be if you had the capability of raising the credit limit on your own credit card whenever you chose. It seems that some in Government are desirous of getting more than half of the people receiving their monies from the Government. The Government does have a "social justice" agenda. If you want true "social justice" it needs to come from the people, not from above.

where a regime/ government maintains the support of the army it maintains its hold on power. name one revolution that has succeeded where the army has stood by the government.
What was the civil war if not an attempt to overthrow the elected government of the United States? why did it fail- because the army remained true to the union.

The Civil War was not in the least bit an attempt to overthrow the Government. Thirteen states decided that their best course of action was to create a new country. They did so. The rest saw that as an insurrection. As for the army remaining true to the Union is patently false. Many of the military leaders in the South were members of the US military that quit the military and went to the south. Some of those were:
Himself a graduate of West Point and a former regular officer, Confederate President Jefferson Davis highly prized these valuable recruits to the cause and saw that former regular officers were given positions of authority and responsibility.[8]

* Richard H. Anderson
* Pierre Beauregard
* Braxton Bragg
* Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr.
* Samuel Cooper
* Jubal Anderson Early
* Richard Ewell
* Josiah Gorgas
* William Joseph Hardee
* Ambrose Powell Hill
* Daniel Harvey Hill
* John Bell Hood
* Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson
* Albert Sidney Johnston
* Joseph E. Johnston
* Robert E. Lee
* James Longstreet
* Dabney Herndon Maury
* John Hunt Morgan
* John C. Pemberton
* Edmund Kirby Smith
* Gustavus Woodson Smith
* J.E.B. Stuart
* Joseph Wheeler

even if it is the will of the people? because that is the argument i am trying to make. very few people believe that gun ownership is an absolute wrong; by the same token very few see the need for military style weaponry in civillian hands. it was the same argument played out in Australia and guess who lost- because it was the will of the people.

In the US, in spite of the second amendment, there are myriad restrictions on ownership. Your comments imply a belief that proponents of the Second desire unrestricted. Nothig could be further from the truth. Just because we stand by the Second does not mean that reasonable controls, or none, are to be dispensed with. All of the concealed carry states have restrictions on the ability to carry and no one is opposed to those restrictions.

Well i could have used the old lefty ploy and made political mileage out of the frequent rampage shootings in America but i thought that it would be self evident that the ability to do so was more aptly made with the example cited.

Rampage shootings are not an issue of guns, but an issue of people.

and its the few who feel the absolute necessity of owning such a weapon that scares the crap out of the rest. a recent report on Military Intelligence.com said that, at some points in the calendar, there were more Barretts in the hands of civilians than in the army in the US.

This surprises you!?!?!? There are, in total, some 2.9 million in the US military and well over 300 million in the country. So the quote is meaningless!
And a Barrett is now a collectors piece. Its position in the Military has been replaced by newer weapons. To make a point, there is a gentleman relatively near hear that has several tanks and other armored vehicles, According to you I should be in deathly fear of this man.

Oh, incidently, when has there been a "rampage" shooting involving a Barrett

[Bren122]

Currently the budget is pushing $2 trillion because the administration has determined that giving monies to their friends is good for the country. It may also be because they believe that all of the country's money belongs to the Government.
How well off do you think you would be if you had the capability of raising the credit limit on your own credit card whenever you chose. It seems that some in Government are desirous of getting more than half of the people receiving their monies from the Government. The Government does have a "social justice" agenda. If you want true "social justice" it needs to come from the people, not from above.

Republicans are just as guilty of pork barrelling and overspending; though i do agree with your critique of the current government.

The Civil War was not in the least bit an attempt to overthrow the Government. Thirteen states decided that their best course of action was to create a new country. They did so. The rest saw that as an insurrection. As for the army remaining true to the Union is patently false. Many of the military leaders in the South were members of the US military that quit the military and went to the south. Some of those were:
Himself a graduate of West Point and a former regular officer, Confederate President Jefferson Davis highly prized these valuable recruits to the cause and saw that former regular officers were given positions of authority and responsibility.[8]

* Richard H. Anderson
* Pierre Beauregard
* Braxton Bragg
* Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr.
* Samuel Cooper
* Jubal Anderson Early
* Richard Ewell
* Josiah Gorgas
* William Joseph Hardee
* Ambrose Powell Hill
* Daniel Harvey Hill
* John Bell Hood
* Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson
* Albert Sidney Johnston
* Joseph E. Johnston
* Robert E. Lee
* James Longstreet
* Dabney Herndon Maury
* John Hunt Morgan
* John C. Pemberton
* Edmund Kirby Smith
* Gustavus Woodson Smith
* J.E.B. Stuart
* Joseph Wheeler

you are naming individuals, many of whom were not on the active list- Jackson being the most obvious. the United States Army as a whole (or even a majority) did not go over to the other side.

In the US, in spite of the second amendment, there are myriad restrictions on ownership. Your comments imply a belief that proponents of the Second desire unrestricted. Nothig could be further from the truth. Just because we stand by the Second does not mean that reasonable controls, or none, are to be dispensed with. All of the concealed carry states have restrictions on the ability to carry and no one is opposed to those restrictions.

again- i have not mentioned conceal or carry.
but the NRA has been opposed to delays for background checks, background checks, psychological assessments and the banning of weapon types and individual weapons and ammunitions. it has opposed banning armour piercing bullets- the so called "cop killers." this is the number one representative group for gun owners.

Rampage shootings are not an issue of guns, but an issue of people.

This surprises you!?!?!? There are, in total, some 2.9 million in the US military and well over 300 million in the country. So the quote is meaningless!
And a Barrett is now a collectors piece. Its position in the Military has been replaced by newer weapons. To make a point, there is a gentleman relatively near hear that has several tanks and other armored vehicles, According to you I should be in deathly fear of this man.

Oh, incidently, when has there been a "rampage" shooting involving a Barrett

[/QUOTE]

[DuncanONeil]

To say; "government is meant to serve, not fear, the people. " is foolish. To make it simple, you fear your boss. Not because he is mean or any such thing but because he has the power to fire you.
For the Government to fear the people makes the Government responsive to the people. When the Government does not fear the people you arrive at a situation like we have now, where the Government decides that it does not matter what the people say or desire we are going to pass the law we think is best for them.
The people did not want to bail out the auto companies. The Government went ahead anyway! The people have determined that the Government plan for health insurance is fatally flawed and do not want it. What is the Government position? Pass it anyhow! We'll fix it later! The second part of that is proof they know it is flawed, why not fix it first?

A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

The majority of the continental congress did not want a large standing army or navy; many did not want an army or navy AT ALL (and I believe Jefferson was one of these). this is a distinctly English import- the refugees from Cromwellian England were well aware of the dangers of military dictatorship and the dangers of a standing army. the subsequent triumph of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution convinced the people of England that no army was stronger than the will of the people- they are wrong. governments are only overthrown from within when they lose the support of the military.
the militia system was seen as an answer to the problem of a military coup and defending the nation. the right to bare arms clearly derives from this principle.
the western expansion changed the basis for this thinking. a militia force was not feesible and a standing (and woefully underfunded) army could not be everywhere. people still needed to defend themselves so the thinking behind the right to bare arms changed.
now the idea that when faced with the vast array of technology and weapons platforms available to the US army, navy and air force, combined with a dictatorship willing to go to any lengths to ensure its position, that 20 gumnuts in Idaho or Montana armed with an arsenal of all kinds is going to resist is laughable. fighting to the death to preserve their access to any weapon or ammunition they deem necessary is moronic.
the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?
the sorts of weapons that the right are defending access to are a crutch to the nutjobs on both sides of the debate- a fall back position so that they don't have to compromise. about the only justification for these weapons' widespread proliferation is to defend against our friends up in the mountains of Idaho and Montana when they get sick and tired of waiting for the "World Government" to make its move and decide on a pre-emptive strike as at Oklahoma City.
i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense.

[DuncanONeil]

"the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense."

Then how do you reconcile the fact that states that have authorized an ability for its citizens to carry concealed handguns experience a significant downturn in violent crime?

[Bren122]

"the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense."

Then how do you reconcile the fact that states that have authorized an ability for its citizens to carry concealed handguns experience a significant downturn in violent crime?

your post does not make sense in light of the quote; i don't mention conceal and carry laws.

it is this simple- liberals say that all guns are dangerous and they should all be banned.
i am saying that going to the public and saying that no gun should be banned because back in 1870 it was useful on the prairies is to ignore that very few people live on the prairies anymore. what possible reason could there be in an urban or rural environment for a gun with a 30-50 round magazine with a rate of fire in excess of 650 rounds per minute?
the vast majority of the public are all for handguns for self defence and hunting rifles, etc. where you lose them, and worry them, is when you mount a defence for these automatic and semi-automatic military rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles.

[DuncanONeil]

No you did not I did. However, the focus and tenor of your recent messages has been that having weapons available and ready was the major contributing factor in wide spread violence. My making the jump to CCW, with its concomitant reduction in violent crime is more appropriate than your jumping back to either the founding or the expansion and attesting that those conditions do not exist and therefore the need for firearms does not exist.
Why is there a need in a modern city for firearms, some cities (some portions of others) have the same reputation as Dodge city did before the arrival of Wyatt and his brothers. I do not know how big that town was but it is not unreasonable to understand that you could get from one side to the other in a short period of time. I live in a place with some 600,000 people, 97 square miles of ground, and only a bit over 600 cops on duty at a given time, with less on the street. In certain parts of town you could be beaten to death before the cops get there. Yet you seem to wish to insist that that is my best option.
You also try to base a complete ban on firearms on a single category. The is a word for that tactic. To use such to get someone to agree and then postulate that into a general dismissal of all firearms is not a valid argument.

your post does not make sense in light of the quote; i don't mention conceal and carry laws.

it is this simple- liberals say that all guns are dangerous and they should all be banned.
i am saying that going to the public and saying that no gun should be banned because back in 1870 it was useful on the prairies is to ignore that very few people live on the prairies anymore. what possible reason could there be in an urban or rural environment for a gun with a 30-50 round magazine with a rate of fire in excess of 650 rounds per minute?
the vast majority of the public are all for handguns for self defence and hunting rifles, etc. where you lose them, and worry them, is when you mount a defence for these automatic and semi-automatic military rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles.

[Bren122]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren122
... or are sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?
MMI says
Works for me ...

LOL.........

[denuseri]

No not at all, the south just wanted to seperate itself from the country they had previously made an oath to abide within (and our constitution btw too) so they could keep their slaves.

Which would have made the whole of Brittan (as well as some other western european counties at the time more than happy since it would open the dooor to their being able to more readily drive a wedge in any united front we may have previously presented against further domination by them perfectly.

Which is why we ratified the constitution to begin with. (Read the Federalist Papers if you dont believe me)

[Bren122]

No not at all, the south just wanted to seperate itself from the country they had previously made an oath to abide within (and our constitution btw too) so they could keep their slaves.

Which would have made the whole of Brittan (as well as some other western european counties at the time more than happy since it would open the dooor to their being able to more readily drive a wedge in any united front we may have previously presented against further domination by them perfectly.

Which is why we ratified the constitution to begin with. (Read the Federalist Papers if you dont believe me)

The success of the South relied absolutely on recognition by Britain; and Britain refused to supply it because of the pro-slavery stance taken by the confederacy. In fact the failure of the South worked to Britain's favour- it managed to establish cotton farms in labour cheap parts of the Empire and in Egypt as well as weakening France in its misguided pursuit of a Mexican crown. workers in the cotton mills in the north of England sent letters of support to Lincoln and even contributed money to the Northern war effort while their mills stood idle for want of Southern cotton. Liverpool dock workers refused to unload much of the cotton that was smuggled out of the South. Britain put principle above interest in this matter.
the Southern seccession was very obviously a ploy to overthrow the government of the US by making Lincoln's presidency untenable and returning to the Union under its own terms.

[DuncanONeil]

"the Southern seccession was very obviously a ploy to overthrow the government of the US by making Lincoln's presidency untenable and returning to the Union under its own terms."

Evidence? Curious.

[Bren122]

"the Southern seccession was very obviously a ploy to overthrow the government of the US by making Lincoln's presidency untenable and returning to the Union under its own terms."

Evidence? Curious.

from the outset, except in radical journals and radical speeches, the aim of the threat of secession was to change the constitutional arrangements for entry of states into the Union so that parts of the south could be used to balance the plains states and keep a balance in the Senate and House. the nomination of Lincoln as Republican candidate against a divided democrat ticket meant that there was a real chance that an abolitionist would sit in the White House. the aim of the threat was maintained, but there was an additional purpose in attempting to keep Lincoln from being elected and, if elected, from being sworn in.
of course the Republicans won the election and Lincoln was sworn in. the delay between the ceremony and the first shot was used to arm the militias of both sides but also to find a compromise that would allow the south to return; it could not return under anything less than a full backdown by the north and this was never an option. the south's retention of slavery relied on a non-abolitionist president and a balance of states as represented in the House and Senate. there was also the issue of the economic and demographic preponderance of the north- as I noted to Denusseri there is a real element of now or never in the writings of the leadership of the south.
because neither side was prepared to back down the war began; but in order for the South to retain slavery for as long as it needed it had to overturn Lincoln's election and change the constitutional basis for statehood. though the attempt failed it was still an attempt to overthrow the US and the presidency.


the main alternative envisaged by elements of the south was an American Empire in Central America and the Carribean with perhaps extensions into South America. just as Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico were incorporated as conquered lands into the Union it was envisaged that other Mexican states would be included as slave states. of course the north was opposed to this on two fronts- the westward expansion already took up a great deal of energy and resources and the idea of extending slavery to areas where it had been banned. Ironically, the south alone did not have the resources to implement this dream.

[DuncanONeil]

Some of that was not covered in classes I took.
But the summary does make a stronger case that the prime issue of the war was States Rights.
If you consider the attempt to unseat Lincoln an attempt to "overthrow ... the presidency. Can not be said of the actions of those in Florida in 2000? Just an aside.
I am not so certain that it was the issue of slavery that drove the South. Though the existence of slavery was a large factor in the nature of the Southern economy. With the tech available and the size of the work force paying wages must have been seen as a "death knell" for the entire economy of those states.
Oh yes, while slaves did exist in the North the vast majority were in the South. So in some respects the argument about slavery was Pot/Kettle.

from the outset, except in radical journals and radical speeches, the aim of the threat of secession was to change the constitutional arrangements for entry of states into the Union so that parts of the south could be used to balance the plains states and keep a balance in the Senate and House. the nomination of Lincoln as Republican candidate against a divided democrat ticket meant that there was a real chance that an abolitionist would sit in the White House. the aim of the threat was maintained, but there was an additional purpose in attempting to keep Lincoln from being elected and, if elected, from being sworn in.
of course the Republicans won the election and Lincoln was sworn in. the delay between the ceremony and the first shot was used to arm the militias of both sides but also to find a compromise that would allow the south to return; it could not return under anything less than a full backdown by the north and this was never an option. the south's retention of slavery relied on a non-abolitionist president and a balance of states as represented in the House and Senate. there was also the issue of the economic and demographic preponderance of the north- as I noted to Denusseri there is a real element of now or never in the writings of the leadership of the south.
because neither side was prepared to back down the war began; but in order for the South to retain slavery for as long as it needed it had to overturn Lincoln's election and change the constitutional basis for statehood. though the attempt failed it was still an attempt to overthrow the US and the presidency.


the main alternative envisaged by elements of the south was an American Empire in Central America and the Carribean with perhaps extensions into South America. just as Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico were incorporated as conquered lands into the Union it was envisaged that other Mexican states would be included as slave states. of course the north was opposed to this on two fronts- the westward expansion already took up a great deal of energy and resources and the idea of extending slavery to areas where it had been banned. Ironically, the south alone did not have the resources to implement this dream.