ETO Salesman of the year!

[Hondo]

Fine job, fine job.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165726/posts

[Daniel]

Fine job, fine job.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165726/posts
Rather worrying. Makes me glad I don't live there!

Fair enough buying a hunting rifle but some of the people on hat site are complaining about possibly not being able to get an AR-15 in the future. AR-15's are pretty much for killing people :mark:

[airshifter]

AR-15's are pretty much for killing people :mark:

About as much as beer and vehicles are both made for killing people. ;)

[Daniel]

About as much as beer and vehicles are both made for killing people. ;)

You know very well what I mean :) I'm not anti-gun at all and when I've gone to South Africa and stayed with family I've happily gone shooting with bolt action rifles and I think people should be free to own guns which are suitable for the purposes of hunting :up: But these sort of guns belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of everyday people.

[airshifter]

You know very well what I mean :) I'm not anti-gun at all and when I've gone to South Africa and stayed with family I've happily gone shooting with bolt action rifles and I think people should be free to own guns which are suitable for the purposes of hunting :up: But these sort of guns belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of everyday people.

That's part of the "assault weapons" myth though. For anything that requires quicker pointing, a pistol gripped weapon is easier to point quickly. It's also easier to hold more upright to keep proper sight alignment. I've been around weapons since a young child and fired all kinds of them including high powered and fully automatic military weapons. But none of them is any more lethal than the other unless shot at someone.

Is a high powered sports car more lethal than an economy car?

[Daniel]

That's part of the "assault weapons" myth though. For anything that requires quicker pointing, a pistol gripped weapon is easier to point quickly. It's also easier to hold more upright to keep proper sight alignment. I've been around weapons since a young child and fired all kinds of them including high powered and fully automatic military weapons. But none of them is any more lethal than the other unless shot at someone.

Is a high powered sports car more lethal than an economy car?

OK question :) Why don't we see your guys and gals in Iraq running around with pistols if they're just as good for the task and easier to aim?

[airshifter]

OK question :) Why don't we see your guys and gals in Iraq running around with pistols if they're just as good for the task and easier to aim?

I said "pistol gripped", not "pistols".

As an example, a pistol gripped shotgun would be much quicker to point when bird hunting, especially on quick moving animals.



Is a high powered sports car more lethal than an economy car?

[Hondo]

A pistol gripped shotgun with a fixed stock is great in the field. The pistol grip really lessens the felt recoil in the shoulder.

[Easy Drifter]

Never fired a pistol grip shotgun but here is one for you.
When I did a lot of hunting for partridge I could get off 3 shots with a single shot gun as fast anyone could with a pump action or bolt action. Double barrel could beat me on two shots.
The trick was to carry two extra shells between my fingers on my left hand.
Fire, flick open gun, load, flip gun to close, cock and ready to fire. The drawback was I had to lower the gun to do this but I was still faster than others with bolt action or pump.
It took a lot of practice and most of the time I only carried one shell in my left hand. In thick bush you usually could only get one shot at a bird but there were often two close together.
Anybody else ever do that? Just curious.
Cdn. law only allowed a shell in the chamber and 2 in a magazine for shotguns then. I do not know about today.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That's part of the "assault weapons" myth though. For anything that requires quicker pointing, a pistol gripped weapon is easier to point quickly. It's also easier to hold more upright to keep proper sight alignment. I've been around weapons since a young child and fired all kinds of them including high powered and fully automatic military weapons. But none of them is any more lethal than the other unless shot at someone.

Is a high powered sports car more lethal than an economy car?

Airshifter..I am with you 99% of the way on this...but I will say that a high powered AR15 is a bit of overkill if you were going hunting. Last time I looked...deer were not wearing armour or anything.

I think guns have reached a point where they are so powerful and so good that it makes people nervous.

Guns don't kill people, people carrying guns do it and I get that...but I wouldn't want you having an 88mm cannon out back to knock down the odd goose that flies over either.

The economy car is just as deadly as the 200hp Ferrari Enzo but the Enzo will get to you a lot quicker if the guy behind the wheel has his heart set on running you over too....

[Hondo]

Actually, the AR-15 is now available in many different calibers. It's primary military caliber of .223 or 5.56 mm if you will, is too small to be used on deer legally in many states. The round itself was not intended to be a killing round on humans, per se, but an incapacitating round. The theory was that a dead soldier was of no concern to anyone but his next of kin. A wounded soldier required two additional soldiers to carry him, plus the logistics of treating him, not to mention the effect on morale of having someone screaming and thrashing about right next to you. When the US Army was forced to adopt the rifle, they changed the barrel twist rate which enhanced accuracy at longer ranges but negatively affected the severity of the wounds it caused. AR-15 style rifles are very popular with ranchers and country folk that have to deal with varmits and predators, like coyotes. A lot of people like them because they're just fun to shoot.

To clarify, an "assault rifle" is a shoulder fired weapon that utilizes a medium powered cartridge (more powerful than a pistol round but not as powerful as say, a 7.62 Nato round) and is capable of being fired in both the semi-automatic mode and the full automatic mode. In other words, most of what the media calls assault rifles, ain't. To the ignorant, anything with a large magazine capacity is an assault rifle. Of course, much of what the media refers to as AK-47s are actually AKMs or AK-74s...oh well.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Gee...so I WANT to be shot by an AR 15 cause it will just maim me instead of kill me right? Boy I am glad we cleared THAT up....


Actually, the AR-15 is now available in many different calibers. It's primary military caliber of .223 or 5.56 mm if you will, is too small to be used on deer legally in many states. The round itself was not intended to be a killing round on humans, per se, but an incapacitating round. The theory was that a dead soldier was of no concern to anyone but his next of kin. A wounded soldier required two additional soldiers to carry him, plus the logistics of treating him, not to mention the effect on morale of having someone screaming and thrashing about right next to you. When the US Army was forced to adopt the rifle, they changed the barrel twist rate which enhanced accuracy at longer ranges but negatively affected the severity of the wounds it caused. AR-15 style rifles are very popular with ranchers and country folk that have to deal with varmits and predators, like coyotes. A lot of people like them because they're just fun to shoot.

To clarify, an "assault rifle" is a shoulder fired weapon that utilizes a medium powered cartridge (more powerful than a pistol round but not as powerful as say, a 7.62 Nato round) and is capable of being fired in both the semi-automatic mode and the full automatic mode. In other words, most of what the media calls assault rifles, ain't. To the ignorant, anything with a large magazine capacity is an assault rifle. Of course, much of what the media refers to as AK-47s are actually AKMs or AK-74s...oh well.

[Hondo]

Gee...so I WANT to be shot by an AR 15 cause it will just maim me instead of kill me right? Boy I am glad we cleared THAT up....

If given the option before being shot, opt for a new AR-15 or one of the newer M16A1 or later versions. The originals had the 1 in 14 twist that made it so devastating. The Army changed that to 1 in 12 when they adopted it. It is now 1 in 9 and/or 1 in 7. Of course, the hydrostatic shock won't be pretty with any of them. You're gonna hurt for a few days, thats for sure.

[Daniel]

Airshifter..I am with you 99% of the way on this...but I will say that a high powered AR15 is a bit of overkill if you were going hunting. Last time I looked...deer were not wearing armour or anything.

I think guns have reached a point where they are so powerful and so good that it makes people nervous.

Guns don't kill people, people carrying guns do it and I get that...but I wouldn't want you having an 88mm cannon out back to knock down the odd goose that flies over either.

The economy car is just as deadly as the 200hp Ferrari Enzo but the Enzo will get to you a lot quicker if the guy behind the wheel has his heart set on running you over too....

Agreed. I'm all for hunting, I really am, but like you say these guns are overkill for hunting and well in my opinion they are far better suited to killing people. IMHO if you want to hunt deer get a bolt action rifle with a scope.

Of course it's the clot with the gun that aims it at someone who's going to kill people, but lets make it harder for him to do his thing, high powered automatic weapons are not suited to hunting in any way whatsoever unless you're wanting to take a herd of bison down or something :crazy:

[airshifter]

Agreed. I'm all for hunting, I really am, but like you say these guns are overkill for hunting and well in my opinion they are far better suited to killing people. IMHO if you want to hunt deer get a bolt action rifle with a scope.

Of course it's the clot with the gun that aims it at someone who's going to kill people, but lets make it harder for him to do his thing, high powered automatic weapons are not suited to hunting in any way whatsoever unless you're wanting to take a herd of bison down or something :crazy:

But that's just it. A standard AR-15 or M-16 is a lower powered weapon than what most people use to hunt, and much lower powered than what many use.



Is a high powered sports car more lethal than an economy car?

[Daniel]

But that's just it. A standard AR-15 or M-16 is a lower powered weapon than what most people use to hunt, and much lower powered than what many use.



Is a high powered sports car more lethal than an economy car?

I think the question is more this, what is more lethal, a road with one fast car on it or a road with 30 econoboxes on it. It's all about rate of fire baby, an AR-15 or M16 are both perfectly good weapons for a killing a few people with. A scoped rifle isn't going to be quite up to it.

[steve_spackman]

Rather worrying. Makes me glad I don't live there!

Fair enough buying a hunting rifle but some of the people on hat site are complaining about possibly not being able to get an AR-15 in the future. AR-15's are pretty much for killing people :mark:

its in their blood...
also check this out..these are some VERY messed up people

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=pray%20for%20bush;m=all;o=time

http://www.rjchq.org/

[Mark in Oshawa]

That's nice Steve. Freerepublic isn't indicative of America and you know it. Its ok tho...keep insulting people's intelligence making it sound like the loons are running the place.

I think Fiero you are correct on saying the AR15 is a light weight and not a powerful weapon but the carnage one creates dictates that it should be at least seen as something that the average man doesn't need. A collector may have one but again, this weapon has no real purpose but creating carnage on the battlefield. Hell..why don't you just issue every neighbourhood a community Abrams tank? Overkill? Ok a lot...but there are guns that you use for sport, or targets or protection, but an AR15 is crossing the line over into a possible terrorist weapon.

AS much as I have defended the right to bear arms, the US Constitution doesn't guarntee the right of the average citizen to own something that can inflict so much damage so quickly. It never defines any of it so someone should be ready to sit down with the NRA types and cut through the BS and find a middle ground to amend the right to bear arms. Of course...I am likely arguing against myself.....lol

[Hondo]

That's nice Steve. Freerepublic isn't indicative of America and you know it. Its ok tho...keep insulting people's intelligence making it sound like the loons are running the place.

I think Fiero you are correct on saying the AR15 is a light weight and not a powerful weapon but the carnage one creates dictates that it should be at least seen as something that the average man doesn't need. A collector may have one but again, this weapon has no real purpose but creating carnage on the battlefield. Hell..why don't you just issue every neighbourhood a community Abrams tank? Overkill? Ok a lot...but there are guns that you use for sport, or targets or protection, but an AR15 is crossing the line over into a possible terrorist weapon.

AS much as I have defended the right to bear arms, the US Constitution doesn't guarntee the right of the average citizen to own something that can inflict so much damage so quickly. It never defines any of it so someone should be ready to sit down with the NRA types and cut through the BS and find a middle ground to amend the right to bear arms. Of course...I am likely arguing against myself.....lol

The largest terrorist act in this country was done with cheap box cutter knives from Wal Mart and 4 stolen airplanes. Prior to that, the record was held by a couple of guys with a rented truck and fertilizer.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero...touche.

[airshifter]

I think the question is more this, what is more lethal, a road with one fast car on it or a road with 30 econoboxes on it. It's all about rate of fire baby, an AR-15 or M16 are both perfectly good weapons for a killing a few people with. A scoped rifle isn't going to be quite up to it.

Rate of fire has little to do with how lethal a weapon is. For that matter, any semiautomatic weapon, or even revolver, can sustain a rate of fire faster than most people can properly aim. When you are dealing with unarmed opposition, single shot weapons, pump shotguns and other such thing are more than lethal.

My point using the cars as comparison is that in the hands of law abiding people, none of the above is lethal. In the hands of a drunk, bicycles can be lethal. In the hands of a physcho, any gun or as Fiero 5.7 points out any box cutter can be deadly.

[Jag_Warrior]

Everytime the Democrats listen to the Di Feinstein/Chuckie Schumer/Babs Boxer types on gun control, they end up getting their asses handed to them in the next mid term election. I have my doubts about Pelosi, and especially Reid, but I don't think Obama is dumb enough to go down the same path that is littered with the careers of his fellow Democrats and liberal Republicans. And it's not just the liberal Democrats that have felt the wrath of the NRA and GOA. Bring up George H.W. Bush's name around some GOA types and the only person that they'll use harsher terms to describe is Bill Clinton. When "Chicken George" Bush resigned his NRA membership in defense of the thugs at BATF, many of us felt that he should move faster so that the door wouldn't smack him on the ass on his way out the door.

The GOA is "different." That's where people go when they're too hardcore to be welcome at NRA meetings. Then you have the JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership). It's a small but very vocal and very well financed anti-gun control group - closer to the GOA than the NRA in many of its beliefs. The NRA does not seek to put a machine gun in every American home. The GOA and JPFO, I don't know about...

But just talking about the NRA (more moderate than some may want to believe), the NRA would be happy to work with President Obama on (gun) crime initiatives. Over the years, the NRA has worked with many states to craft mandatory sentencing for gun crimes, especially where guns and drugs were involved. In the ealy 90's, many drug dealers in Richmond, VA started carrying sharpened sticks (literally)... because being caught with a bag of dope and a firearm meant a mandatory prison term.

But just using the Pareto principle, why focus legislation on legal gun owners (no matter the type of weapon) when it is illegal gun owners and convicted violent criminals who commit most of the gun crimes in the U.S.? I understand that some nut case may use a mean looking semi-auto rifle once every year or two to kill 5 people. And that's bad. No argument there. Just like cops who execute people on the street or have been found to be aiding in illegal gun sales or other crimes. That's bad too. But are the hundreds, if not thousands of gun crimes commited by street gangs and organized crime types not a greater issue? I think they are. And I'm disappointed that as much as Clinton and his backers were gun grabbers, they did very little to remove illegal guns from the streets, or deal with organized crime. Johnny Chung of Norinco actually stayed in the White House - the same Norinco that was shipping "real" AK-47's to L.A. street gangs. These were select fire: the real deal. In the past, I have hunted deer with an AK-47 (semi auto only, no different from any other semi auto rifle - it just looks "evil"). Snap in a 5 round mag with Cor-Bons, and you have one of the best brush rifles you could ever ask for. But unless you're breaking in my house... or I mistakenly eat some bad, psychedelic mushrooms, I doubt you'd have to worry about me. And the same holds true for most other legal gun owners in the U.S. But a member of the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sicilian Mafia, Colombian or Mexican drug cartels... you better be worried about those boys & girls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. And they tend to get the fine imported stuff that people like me only get to see at gun shows. They also don't have to undergo background checks... or waiting periods... or even "one Uzi a month" limits. :D

All that to say, I am in favor of gun control. Most in the NRA are... though they may use different terminology. But we would like for it to start with the violent criminal element that probably makes life in some inner cities unbearable. Kicking down grandpa's door to seize the AR-15 that he legally bought may make for good PR for the Schumer/Feinsteins of the world. But it will have no affect on crime. Sending in para-military federal SWAT teams to cripple the street gangs and organized criminals of America is something that I, along with every other member of the NRA, would support.

[MrJan]

Is a high powered sports car more lethal than an economy car?

That would depend on how it's being driven. You can use cars on a track and guns on a gun range without being dangerous. Likewise you can use any car on the road without being dangerous, however a gun will always have the possibility to be lethal. I can hit a pedestrian in my car (although I hope I never will and will do eveything to make sure I don't) and they can walk away completely uninjured. If I shoot someone then it's fairly likely that it'll hurt.

Personally I'd say that I'm anti-gun, I don't like them at all and I believe that the 'but I gotta protect my family' excuse to be the biggest problem in the perpetual problem of guns. That said I couldn't give 2 s***s if you own a gun and go hunting, it's when you apparently need any large gun/assault rifle etc. to protect yourself that I take issue with. Anything beyond a small caliber revolver is overkill when it comes to protection.

[Jag_Warrior]

That would depend on how it's being driven. You can use cars on a track and guns on a gun range without being dangerous. Likewise you can use any car on the road without being dangerous, however a gun will always have the possibility to be lethal. I can hit a pedestrian in my car (although I hope I never will and will do eveything to make sure I don't) and they can walk away completely uninjured. If I shoot someone then it's fairly likely that it'll hurt.

Well, on the possibility of being lethal, both the car and the gun have that possibility. I hope I never have to choose, but being hit by a 3500 lb vehicle doesn't appeal to me any more than being shot. :(



Anything beyond a small caliber revolver is overkill when it comes to protection.

Just curious. But if we're talking about protection (being in fear of losing your life, I assume), why would you want to have a small caliber revolver? I can agree with the revolver part, as they tend to be very reliable, even in the hands of inexperienced shooters. But if I'm in the horrible and unfortunate position that I have to shoot (and necessarily kill) someone, there's no such thing as "overkill." Killed is killed. Dead is dead. And as my cop friends have told me over the years, if you have to do it (and only if you have to do it), do it right.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jan, you are pretty typical of most who don't like guns. What you are going to have to grasp though that any gun is dangerous in the wrong hands and no gun no matter how powerful is dangerous if used in the proper situations.

I am nervous too about people owning AR15's and AK's but I also take Fiero's point that 20 box cutters brought down 4 air planes on 9/11. Anything that can be made a weapon can bring GREAT harm if used in a fashion that does so.

What Jag has amply pointed out that whether the gun is a .22 or a .44 Magnum Pistol, if you are using it to protect yourself, you are shooting to kill. People don't shoot to maim and if someone is using a gun to protect himself in a home invasion, he just wants the problem to be handled. Winging someone with a .22 isn't going to do the job necessarily.

That said, unless you are in the inner city you are not likely to face these situations. Just like I doubt I will have a fire, but I still have a smoke detector and fire extinguisher, and Jag will have a gun in his house.

I do question what the NRA calls gun control Jag. I have heard their point of view and I don't think they are in favour of much beyond the odd background check. THat I think should be mandatory.

[Rollo]

Is a high powered sports car more lethal than an economy car?

In general yes.
Both to the drivers, of said vehicle, to other road users and pedestrians.

The sorts of people who actually want to use the extra power available to them, are on the whole more likely to put their foot down more often. Higher speeds usually equate to an increase in road accidents and in general more fatalities.
On a percentage basis, insurance companies know this and also charge higher premiums.

This is a non causa pro causa at its best, well done.

[Jag_Warrior]

I do question what the NRA calls gun control Jag. I have heard their point of view and I don't think they are in favour of much beyond the odd background check. THat I think should be mandatory.

What I call "gun control" probably isn't what most people mean by the term either. I generally mean cleaning up illegal weapons from the streets and leaving law abiding people alone.

Background checks are mandatory now for cartridge loaded rifles, pistols and shotguns. The only firearms exempted are non-cartridge loaded: blackpowder pistols and muzzle-loaders. Some antique cartridge firearms may also be exempted - I'm not sure. But I think we'd agree that a $10,000 Colt Peacemaker made in 1876 probably doesn't pose much a threat.

To be fair, there are firearms sales which take place that don't require background checks: private sales, including those at gunshows in some states. In those cases, the sale is left to the discretion of the seller. Though it remains a crime to knowingly sell a firearm to someone who is not allowed to possess one. Sort of like with the early auto bailout proposals, my feelings are sort of conflicted on mandating regulation of private sales, especially in states where there is no mandatory gun registration. I am firmly against registration, but I have not made up my mind on private sales.

[MrJan]

Jan, you are pretty typical of most who don't like guns. What you are going to have to grasp though that any gun is dangerous in the wrong hands and no gun no matter how powerful is dangerous if used in the proper situations.

I am nervous too about people owning AR15's and AK's but I also take Fiero's point that 20 box cutters brought down 4 air planes on 9/11. Anything that can be made a weapon can bring GREAT harm if used in a fashion that does so.

What Jag has amply pointed out that whether the gun is a .22 or a .44 Magnum Pistol, if you are using it to protect yourself, you are shooting to kill. People don't shoot to maim and if someone is using a gun to protect himself in a home invasion, he just wants the problem to be handled. Winging someone with a .22 isn't going to do the job necessarily.

That said, unless you are in the inner city you are not likely to face these situations. Just like I doubt I will have a fire, but I still have a smoke detector and fire extinguisher, and Jag will have a gun in his house.

I do question what the NRA calls gun control Jag. I have heard their point of view and I don't think they are in favour of much beyond the odd background check. THat I think should be mandatory.

Who says that you have to kill any intruders? In the UK self defence is not a defence to murder so you'd have to try your best NOT to kill. The reason I say that small calibre is better is because you are able to stop an intruder without ruining your carpet quite so much ;) I think that is the key difference on this side of the pond is that we aren't so desperate to kill everyone who happens to be on our land (not that we don't have our right wing nutters though).

And the thing about 'in the right hands' is that even experienced people make mistakes, I assume old Cheney was a dab hand but still managed to shoot his mate

[Jag_Warrior]

Who says that you have to kill any intruders? In the UK self defence is not a defence to murder so you'd have to try your best NOT to kill. The reason I say that small calibre is better is because you are able to stop an intruder without ruining your carpet quite so much ;)

If someone is posing a threat to your life, then it is not murder if you kill them. No one should be anxious to face such a situation. Depending on the situation, you might scare away an intruder by shooting him with a .22. More likely, if he is armed or if he is sufficiently determined (or angry), wounding him with a pop gun is just going to insure your own death. Personlly, I don't think anyone should have a gun for self defense if their prime concern is the welfare of a violent offender. It's best just to remain unarmed and try to talk your way out of it. If one is scared or unsure, you will not be able to aim and fire as necessary. With a .22, I would do the same as I've been trained to do with 9mm's, 10mm's, .40's, .44's, etc.: aim for the chest and fire until there is no longer a threat to me or my family. If I wasn't under a threat to my life, I wouldn't have the gun out to begin with. And if the intruder gave up on command, I would allow him to surrender. Everything that would lead to his death would be his own doing.


I think that is the key difference on this side of the pond is that we aren't so desperate to kill everyone who happens to be on our land (not that we don't have our right wing nutters though).

You've been watching too many cowboy movies. :D Why do you want to suggest something like that, that we're desperate to kill everyone who happens to be on our land? I would not allow someone to enter my home, steal my property, rape my girlfriend and/or try to kill me. I would, without hesitation, effectively and quickly open the chest cavity of the person or persons who would attempt such a thing. And I would feel bad about it. But only the living have feelings. I would rather be alive and feel bad than feel nothing and be dead.



And the thing about 'in the right hands' is that even experienced people make mistakes, I assume old Cheney was a dab hand but still managed to shoot his mate

I'd say his mate was a fool for going into the woods with a paranoid, delusional old neocon. Cheney probably had a Saddam flashback and thought his buddy was a Republican Guard or something. I honestly don't know anything about Cheney's shooting skills. But since he mistakenly(?) shot another person, I would grade his gun safety skills at an "F". You can't assume that just because someone is wealthy or a Republican that they know one end of a gun from the other. I wouldn't turn my back on Cheney (or Bush or Rumsfeld) if he was carrying nothing more than a pellet rifle.

[Daniel]

I'd say his mate was a fool for going into the woods with a paranoid, delusional old neocon. Cheney probably had a Saddam flashback and thought his buddy was a Republican Guard or something. I honestly don't know anything about Cheney's shooting skills. But since he mistakenly(?) shot another person, I would grade his gun safety skills at an "F". You can't assume that just because someone is wealthy or a Republican that they know one end of a gun from the other. I wouldn't turn my back on Cheney (or Bush or Rumsfeld) if they were carrying nothing more than pellet rifles.

:rotflmao:

[schmenke]

I find the recent comparisons of assault rifles to passenger vehicles silly, TBH. The design intent of both are completely different.

I don't necessarily have a problem with gun ownership, but what I fail to understand is the need to legislate this within a constitution, particularily when the requirement under which it was enacted is over 200 years old and no longer applicable :mark:

Yes, box-cutters and cow poo has the potential to kill, but does this automatically justify the requirement for public gun ownership?

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't necessarily have a problem with gun ownership, but what I fail to understand is the need to legislate this within a constitution, particularily when the requirement under which it was enacted is over 200 years old and no longer applicable :mark:

Why does it matter that it was written 200 years ago? The basis for our republic was formed on ideas and principles from a republic formed over 2000 years prior to the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

What requirement are you speaking of? And why do you think it's no longer applicable?

[schmenke]

Why does it matter that it was written 200 years ago? The basis for our republic was formed on ideas and principles from a republic formed over 2000 years prior to the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

What requirement are you speaking of? And why do you think it's no longer applicable?

The right to bear arms was enabled in the constitution to ease citizens' anxieties of a newly formed state; specifically to allow the rapid mobilisation of miltia, in lieu of prepared armed forces, to protect against foreign invaders, and to allow for the rebellion against unwanted rulers. My history is a little fuzzy but I believe the original text also contained something about the possession of arms being a distinction between a free man and a slave.

I fail to see how any of the above is still applicable today :mark:

[Jag_Warrior]

The right to bear arms was enabled in the constitution to ease citizens' anxieties of a newly formed state; specifically to allow the rapid mobilisation of miltia, in lieu of prepared armed forces, to protect against foreign invaders, and to allow for the rebellion against unwanted rulers. My history is a little fuzzy but I believe the original text also contained something about the possession of arms being a distinction between a free man and a slave.

I fail to see how any of the above is still applicable today :mark:

There continues to be much debate about various words and their intended meaning. But the 2nd Amendment is rather basic in its (complete) wording:

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.

The most popular argument tends to revolve around what constitutes a militia, and what body may call a militia to action. Is it only the federal or a state government? What would have been the appropriate time to eliminate or radically change the 2nd Amendment? After the War of 1812? After the Civil War? After "the war to end all wars": WWI? Maybe WWII? Perhaps in the 80's, when it became apparent that the Cold War was ending and the Soviets were no longer a major threat... at least for a time? Are we now in our version of the Pax Romana? No worries? No cares? From this moment on, we're all going to play well together? We now have the first government in the history of mankind that can be totally trusted? Call me skeptical.

I'm sure that Jefferson and Adams never dreamed of something like an AK-47 as they debated the 2nd Amendment. And I'm equally sure that they never dreamed that there would ever be anything like Hustler magazine or the movie "Deep Throat" as they debated the 1st Amendment. And sure, one can ponder that someday, the people will be receptive to opening up the Bill of Rights, or maybe doing away with the document altogether. I'm sure there are many ideas on what could/should be changed, in order to make it "applicable" to the times. That may happen. Just as the (imperfect) Roman Republic didn't last forever, this one may not either. And in my opinion, that would be a good first step to the end of the road.

[MrJan]

If someone is posing a threat to your life, then it is not murder if you kill them.

Umm, yes it is. In this country if you kill someone with intent then it is classed as murder, that's exactly the point I was making :rolleyes:


if he is armed or if he is sufficiently determined (or angry), wounding him with a pop gun is just going to insure your own death. Personlly, I don't think anyone should have a gun for self defense if their prime concern is the welfare of a violent offender. It's best just to remain unarmed and try to talk your way out of it. If one is scared or unsure, you will not be able to aim and fire as necessary. With a .22, I would do the same as I've been trained to do with 9mm's, 10mm's, .40's, .44's, etc.: aim for the chest and fire until there is no longer a threat to me or my family.

If I was breaking in to somewhere holding a gun and got shot then I'm pretty f***king likely to drop it. As for .22 I don't know enough to know the effects, I merely said that a small calibre weapon is probably ample to defend your home. Apparently though you take 'defend your home' as a definition of 'repeatedly shoot someone with a big gun'




You've been watching too many cowboy movies. :D Why do you want to suggest something like that, that we're desperate to kill everyone who happens to be on our land? I would not allow someone to enter my home, steal my property, rape my girlfriend and/or try to kill me. I would, without hesitation, effectively and quickly open the chest cavity of the person or persons who would attempt such a thing. And I would feel bad about it. But only the living have feelings. I would rather be alive and feel bad than feel nothing and be dead.

Firstly, I did not say that it was a trait of everyone, at least that was certainly not my intention, just that it is a more prevalent feeling in the States. Secondly, you virtually proved my point by saying that you would shoot to kill anyone trying to break into your house, even if you must have a big gun I can't see why it wouldn't be possible to aim a bit lower and hit the bloke in the leg (or if you feel really vengeful take his balls off)


As fior CHeney, well it was the only example I could think of but my point remains. As Schmenke says a gun is different to a car. One is designed with the main intention of killing things while the other may kill things. The difference is that technological adavances make one even more lethal and the other less so.

Well done for your gun ownership and willingness to kill (whatever the reasons) I'm sure the founding father's are very happy that the stuff they made up years ago is being followed so well in the modern day. God Bless America.

[Easy Drifter]

Jan: A 22 has very little stopping power against a large animal, in this case a human.
You have seen too many movies. It is hard enough to hit anything with accuracy with a handgun. All training the police and military receive is to shoot at the largest mass.
It is just as well they are hard to shoot with accuracy or the 'gang bangers' would kill many more.
Yes I have shot handguns and many other weapons.

[schmenke]

There continues to be much debate about various words and their intended meaning. But the 2nd Amendment is rather basic in its (complete) wording:

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.

The most popular argument tends to revolve around what constitutes a militia, and what body may call a militia to action. Is it only the federal or a state government? What would have been the appropriate time to eliminate or radically change the 2nd Amendment? After the War of 1812? After the Civil War? After "the war to end all wars": WWI? Maybe WWII? Perhaps in the 80's, when it became apparent that the Cold War was ending and the Soviets were no longer a major threat... at least for a time? Are we now in our version of the Pax Romana? No worries? No cares? From this moment on, we're all going to play well together? We now have the first government in the history of mankind that can be totally trusted? Call me skeptical....

The requirement for a militia existed because a properly regimented and equipped armed force had not yet been established.
I think we can all agree that this is hardley the case in the U.S. any more :mark:

[Rollo]

WARNING:
The following contains a well thought out but long argument.


The most popular argument tends to revolve around what constitutes a militia, and what body may call a militia to action. Is it only the federal or a state government? What would have been the appropriate time to eliminate or radically change the 2nd Amendment?

The answer to that is contained within the exact wording of the amendment itself.
"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."

Actually my colleague Schmenke has the answer pretty well spot on:

The right to bear arms was enabled in the constitution to ease citizens' anxieties of a newly formed state; specifically to allow the rapid mobilisation of militia, in lieu of prepared armed forces, to protect against foreign invaders,

At the inception of the Union there was no standing army; and like Switzerland currently, the army needed to be composed of its citizens. When the standing army was established, it should have expired.

A free standing Army didn't actually exist until the creation of the US War Office in 1789. The other date of note would have been September 18, 1947, with the creation of the National Military Establishment, by which time, the Second Amendment should have been repealed.

I wager that it would be impossible to find a militia which is necessary to the security of the USA whilst the Department of Defense exists.

The following argument is spurious:

My argument, or statement, was to the reason that the second amendment was put there. I have stated why it was put there then, and you have done nothing to refute my assertion. So until you can either find a quote from Jefferson or anyone else that says differently, my point stands.

The second amendment was put there so that people could protect themselves, hunt, and overthrow the government if need be.

The idea that overthrowing the government through military force is expressly prohibited through the THIRD AMENDMENT :eek: - Whoa, someone actually using the law, this had better be good.

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

If you turned your newly created militia against the United States, you'll not only be arrested for civil disobedience but possibly be put on trial for treason, which itself is a violation of the Article 3, Section 3 of the constitution.

Hell, even the Civil War was deemed illegal through Texas and White (1869), when the US Supreme Court held that:
"the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null"

So if states can not seceed from the Union, then what chance does the individual have when it comes to rising up against "Tyrannical Goverment"? BUGGER ALL


So until you can either find a quote from Jefferson or anyone else that says differently, my point stands.


Ok, I can do that too:
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates.

Washington had envisaged that the Constitution would change to fit the times. I do not need to look far to prove the Second Amendment does not fit current times at all.

[airshifter]

WARNING:
The following contains a well thought out but long argument.

At the inception of the Union there was no standing army; and like Switzerland currently, the army needed to be composed of its citizens. When the standing army was established, it should have expired.

A free standing Army didn't actually exist until the creation of the US War Office in 1789. The other date of note would have been September 18, 1947, with the creation of the National Military Establishment, by which time, the Second Amendment should have been repealed.



You may need a disclaimer about a well thought out, but completely incorrect in some areas, argument.

Both the US Army and the US Marine Corps existed in 1775.


And as I have stated earlier, I tend to think that the original text was written more to the application you describe. But being that the issue recently went to the US Supreme Court and they think otherwise, to debate it further is to imply any of us knows more about law and intent than the highest court in the US.

[Rollo]

You may need a disclaimer about a well thought out, but completely incorrect in some areas, argument.

Both the US Army and the US Marine Corps existed in 1775.


Not formally they didn't.

The Continental Marines were formed on my birthday Nov 10, 1775 and were then disbanded in 1783. The American Continental Army was founded on June 15, 1775.
Both were disbanded with the formal end of the war with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

It's not exactly "free standing" if it's disbanded is it? Isn't that a non-standing army?

Congress created the US Army on June 14, 1784 after the end of the war. The Marines weren't recreated until 1798.

[MrJan]

Hang on Rollo, I always wondered what the '75 used to be on your name but didn't realise that it was because you were born in 1775 :eek:

[chuck34]

Who says that you have to kill any intruders? In the UK self defence is not a defence to murder so you'd have to try your best NOT to kill. The reason I say that small calibre is better is because you are able to stop an intruder without ruining your carpet quite so much ;) I think that is the key difference on this side of the pond is that we aren't so desperate to kill everyone who happens to be on our land (not that we don't have our right wing nutters though).

And the thing about 'in the right hands' is that even experienced people make mistakes, I assume old Cheney was a dab hand but still managed to shoot his mate

Over here it is a bit different. If you shoot a guy breaking into your house, and don't kill him, the likelyhood of the bugger sueing you is quite high. I have had quite a few cops tell me that if you are going to shoot an intruder, make sure he's good and dead.

Sure it's a harsh thing to do, but we (unfortunately) live in a harsh world.

[MrJan]

Over here it is a bit different. If you shoot a guy breaking into your house, and don't kill him, the likelyhood of the bugger sueing you is quite high. I have had quite a few cops tell me that if you are going to shoot an intruder, make sure he's good and dead.

Sure it's a harsh thing to do, but we (unfortunately) live in a harsh world.

Which goes back to my point about Americans being 'happier' (probably the wrong word but I hope you get the point) to kill rather than maim. I guess that the legal side of it that each of us have pointed out is the main difference. Either way it's a horrible choice but I just don't see why there are people defending the right to have an assault rifle designed for the field when there are smaller weapons which are more suitable, that is the thing with guns that I have an issue with (although I know that there aren't really many people hiding with an MP5 or M16 waiting to take down 10 intruders at a time :D )

[chuck34]

Tell me exactly why I can't have an assult rifle if I want one? I don't have mental issues, and no criminal record. I just want the AR15 because it's "cool". Why can't I have it?

[Jag_Warrior]

Umm, yes it is. In this country if you kill someone with intent then it is classed as murder, that's exactly the point I was making :rolleyes:

I'm not an expert on British law. So, for the purpose of debate, I'll take your word for it (though I'm certain that you're stroking with a very broad brush here). But anyway, using that definition, every British soldier who makes a kill and every British cop who is forced to use his weapon... is a murderer? Is this guy in prison for murder now?
http://www.mareeg.com/fidsan.php?sid=8596&tirsan=9



If I was breaking in to somewhere holding a gun and got shot then I'm pretty f***king likely to drop it. As for .22 I don't know enough to know the effects, I merely said that a small calibre weapon is probably ample to defend your home. Apparently though you take 'defend your home' as a definition of 'repeatedly shoot someone with a big gun'

If I was a violent criminal and you shot me once with a .22, unless your trembling hand managed to aim the shot at my head, you'd have a problem on your hands.

In my state, if a person enters a home (crosses the threshhold of the door) with violent intent, how that situation is dealt with is up to the homeowner. Personally, I would order the criminal to freeze. If he raised a weapon or continued to advance, he would be killed at that point. The size or caliber of the weapon is secondary. The person who taught me to shoot a pistol was an ex-military U.S. Marshal. I was taught to use the same procedures that he used in law enforcement. If you're a criminal in my home, as long as you followed my orders and ceased posing a threat, you would have nothing to worry about, other than jail. It's a simple condition: if/then. The "if" belongs to the criminal. The "then" belongs to me. My advice: crime doesn't pay.






Firstly, I did not say that it was a trait of everyone, at least that was certainly not my intention, just that it is a more prevalent feeling in the States. Secondly, you virtually proved my point by saying that you would shoot to kill anyone trying to break into your house, even if you must have a big gun I can't see why it wouldn't be possible to aim a bit lower and hit the bloke in the leg (or if you feel really vengeful take his balls off)

Especially with a moving target, an arm, leg or foot is a lot smaller target than the chest. Could you try? Sure - it's your life. But just like with using a .22 or a pellet rifle, no firearms self-defense course is going to train people to try something like that.



As fior CHeney, well it was the only example I could think of but my point remains. As Schmenke says a gun is different to a car. One is designed with the main intention of killing things while the other may kill things. The difference is that technological adavances make one even more lethal and the other less so.

A gun is different from a car, and one gun is different from another, just as one car is different from another (with respect to design intent). You can kill with an Olympic target rifle or a match pistol, but that is not their design intent. What they share in common is they are both mechanical objects. And either is only lethal when used by a human, for better or worse. But in general terms, yes, the purpose of a gun is to launch a round in order to put a hole in something... whether it be a piece of paper, a can, an animal or a human.

And I still wouldn't go into the woods with Cheney.



Well done for your gun ownership and willingness to kill (whatever the reasons) I'm sure the founding father's are very happy that the stuff they made up years ago is being followed so well in the modern day. God Bless America.

Good man. Sounds so nice to my ears that I'll say it with you: God Bless America!

I would say that the founding fathers would be disappointed with many of the things we now see: crime, drugs, pornography, illegitimate children, high divorce rates, street gangs, etc. But at the same time, I think they would be very happy to see that the republic that they formed over 200 years prior still stands. A few cracks in the armor, but still looking pretty strong in relative terms. As imperfect as it may be, as NASCAR spotters say... still there, still there. :D I also think they'd get a major kick out of knowing that the little republic that they founded is now the standard bearer for democracy throughout the world. I think they'd be proud that the basic documents and structure of the republic are still in place. I think they'd be proud to know that we have improved, while not changing the basic structure and building blocks. And I seem to recall that there was an island nation in the Atlantic that didn't complain too much about the firearms sent to them by private American citizens, when some little fellow named Adolf was stirring up trouble. But I guess times change...

I also think they'd get a kick out of knowing that the most watched event in the history of the mankind (according to CNN) is taking place right now. And it's taking place in the United States.

[Hondo]

Tell me exactly why I can't have an assult rifle if I want one? I don't have mental issues, and no criminal record. I just want the AR15 because it's "cool". Why can't I have it?

You're an American so, for the rest of today anyway, you can have an AR-15 style rifle, in any caliber from .204 Ruger to .308 Winchester. If you want, you can also pick up a couple of 100 round drum magazines.

You may not own an assault rifle without the class III background check, sign off from the local police chief or sheriff, and a substantial check made out to the treasury department for the one time license fee.

[Hondo]

Other than that, other people don't want you to have one because they are afraid.

[Hondo]

Tell you something chuk34, When I lived in Houston some years back, my sister called and asked if I could pick up a friend of her's at the airport, arriving from New York City, and bring them to her house. I told her no problem and picked her and the boyfriend up and began the drive to sister's house. Driving along the freeway, she and her boyfriend were actually nervous and scared seeing all the pickup trucks with gun racks in the rear windows with guns in them, like, almost all of them. They started to calm down after about 40 minutes but couldn't believe that so many people with guns weren't shooting at each other and robbing liquor stores.

Under the circumstances, I didn't see the need to tell them there was a shotgun resting on the transmission hump, butted up against the front seat in the vehicle they were riding in.

Oh well. You understand it or you don't.

[chuck34]

Tell you something chuk34, When I lived in Houston some years back, my sister called and asked if I could pick up a friend of her's at the airport, arriving from New York City, and bring them to her house. I told her no problem and picked her and the boyfriend up and began the drive to sister's house. Driving along the freeway, she and her boyfriend were actually nervous and scared seeing all the pickup trucks with gun racks in the rear windows with guns in them, like, almost all of them. They started to calm down after about 40 minutes but couldn't believe that so many people with guns weren't shooting at each other and robbing liquor stores.

Under the circumstances, I didn't see the need to tell them there was a shotgun resting on the transmission hump, butted up against the front seat in the vehicle they were riding in.

Oh well. You understand it or you don't.



I understand, but I don't think a lot of others do.

If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

[MrJan]

I'm not an expert on British law. So, for the purpose of debate, I'll take your word for it (though I'm certain that you're stroking with a very broad brush here). But anyway, using that definition, every British soldier who makes a kill and every British cop who is forced to use his weapon... is a murderer? Is this guy in prison for murder now?
http://www.mareeg.com/fidsan.php?sid=8596&tirsan=9[/image]

You knew full well what I meant. Kills during war seem to be ok (not sure why) and cops are entitled to kill but have to spend a very long time proving that it was justified. Although in general our police don't carry firearms so it's not actually that common a problem. For the rest of us it counts as murder and I was always taught at college that self defence is not a defence to murder, murder being 'the unlawful killing of another being with malice aforethought'.

That might just be me getting my A-level law wrong but that's what my tutor told me.



If I was a violent criminal and you shot me once with a .22, unless your trembling hand managed to aim the shot at my head, you'd have a problem on your hands.

This whole .22 thing comes from you lot, I merely said small calibre (TBH anything that can do enough to stop people without spreading their face all over the wall)


In my state, if a person enters a home (crosses the threshhold of the door) with violent intent, how that situation is dealt with is up to the homeowner. Personally, I would order the criminal to freeze. If he raised a weapon or continued to advance, he would be killed at that point. The size or caliber of the weapon is secondary. The person who taught me to shoot a pistol was an ex-military U.S. Marshal. I was taught to use the same procedures that he used in law enforcement. If you're a criminal in my home, as long as you followed my orders and ceased posing a threat, you would have nothing to worry about, other than jail. It's a simple condition: if/then. The "if" belongs to the criminal. The "then" belongs to me. My advice: crime doesn't pay.

Which I guess comes back to my point about our countries being different. Over there you are advised by law enforcement to have a gun and use it if you deem it necessary, over here it most of us don't own guns and I don't think would ever be advised to use one anyway.



A gun is different from a car, and one gun is different from another, just as one car is different from another (with respect to design intent). You can kill with an Olympic target rifle or a match pistol, but that is not their design intent. What they share in common is they are both mechanical objects. And either is only lethal when used by a human, for better or worse. But in general terms, yes, the purpose of a gun is to launch a round in order to put a hole in something... whether it be a piece of paper, a can, an animal or a human.

We can spend all day finding exceptions but ultimately you accept my point that there are guns designed to kill while no car would be built with that purpose in mind?



I would say that the founding fathers would be disappointed with many of the things we now see: crime, drugs, pornography,illegitimate children, high divorce rates, street gangs, etc.

I wouldn't be so sure that they'd disapprove over the highlighted 3, the world was a different place 200 years ago ;)



And I seem to recall that there was an island nation in the Atlantic that didn't complain too much about the firearms sent to them by private American citizens, when some little fellow named Adolf was stirring up trouble. But I guess times change...

I've not actually got a problem with guns themselves because unfortunately they prove to be necessary at times, it's the private ownership in the US that I don't like and the general (broad sweeping statement here) 'gun nut' culture. If I grew up over there then it'd be different but as it is I'm English and just not all that keen on 'the right to bear arms'


I also think they'd get a kick out of knowing that the most watched event in the history of the mankind (according to CNN) is taking place right now. And it's taking place in the United States.

Sadly I think that the US claimed that title back in 2001 :mark:

[steve_spackman]

I would say that the founding fathers would be disappointed with many of the things we now see: crime, drugs, pornography, illegitimate children, high divorce rates, street gangs, etc. But at the same time, I think they would be very happy to see that the republic that they formed over 200 years prior still stands. A few cracks in the armor, but still looking pretty strong in relative terms. As imperfect as it may be, as NASCAR spotters say... still there, still there. :D I also think they'd get a major kick out of knowing that the little republic that they founded is now the standard bearer for democracy throughout the world. I think they'd be proud that the basic documents and structure of the republic are still in place. I think they'd be proud to know that we have improved, while not changing the basic structure and building blocks. And I seem to recall that there was an island nation in the Atlantic that didn't complain too much about the firearms sent to them by private American citizens, when some little fellow named Adolf was stirring up trouble. But I guess times change...

I also think they'd get a kick out of knowing that the most watched event in the history of the mankind (according to CNN) is taking place right now. And it's taking place in the United States.

DONT FOOL yourself in thinking that the US is is now the standard bearer for democracy throughout the world...please show me proof of this

DONT FOOL yourself in thinking that the most watched event in the history of the mankind (according to CNN) is taking place right now. And it's taking place in the United States.

Just goes to show how ignorant alot of people in the US really are

The term free world originated from the Cold War (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-cold-war.htm), when it was used to distinguish between democracies, specifically the United States and Western European countries, and the communist (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-communism.htm) Soviet Union and its allies. As the United States led the war against communism (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-communism.htm), the President of the United States came to be known as the “leader of the free world.”, which was given to him by the people and/ or the US government This term is often used today because of the hegemony (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-hegemony.htm) exercised by the United States and the power of the presidency itself. As president, a leader can begin a war, overturn legislation, and build diplomatic relations among countries.
Referring to the President of the United States as the “leader of the free world” is debated by other countries that also fought for democracy during the Cold War. There are also concerns about the use of the word "free". During the Cold War battle between ideologies, African, Asian, and South American countries, which cannot clearly be defined as democracies and therefore “free”, supported the United States and Western Europe. Currently, countries with non-democratic governments can be considered free.

[Jag_Warrior]

Other than that, other people don't want you to have one because they are afraid.

Plus they're evil (looking) and bad. But take the muzzle brake or flash hider off, make sure it doesn't have a pistol grip or a bayonet lug... and all of a sudden that very same weapon becomes "sporterized"... and and it's no longer "bad"!!! You could buy as many as you wanted then. That Clinton/Reno, Schumer, Feinstein and Boxer worried more about what guns looked like than actual crime is what convinced me they were not sincere (or smart). Course, then there was Johnny Chung of Norinco hanging with Clinton like they were brothers. Yeah, the same Norinco that was found to be illegally importing select fire AK-47's to L.A. street gangs.

Like I said, I'm all for gun control. Start with nationwide sweeps that target street gangs and organized crime. Most of them are multiple felons and repeat offenders. There are already words on pieces of paper prohibiting them from owning firearms. Putting more words on pieces of paper, to make criminals out of the (generally) law abiding, is just the most absolute foolish thing that I can imagine. Superficial fixes and meaningless feel good legislation gets us nowhere.

[steve_spackman]

DONT FOOL yourself in thinking that the US is is now the standard bearer for democracy throughout the world...please show me proof of this

DONT FOOL yourself in thinking that the most watched event in the history of the mankind (according to CNN) is taking place right now. And it's taking place in the United States.

Just goes to show how ignorant alot of people in the US really are

The term free world originated from the Cold War (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-cold-war.htm), when it was used to distinguish between democracies, specifically the United States and Western European countries, and the communist (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-communism.htm) Soviet Union and its allies. As the United States led the war against communism (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-communism.htm), the President of the United States came to be known as the “leader of the free world.”, which was given to him by the people and/ or the US government This term is often used today because of the hegemony (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-hegemony.htm) exercised by the United States and the power of the presidency itself. As president, a leader can begin a war, overturn legislation, and build diplomatic relations among countries.
Referring to the President of the United States as the “leader of the free world” is debated by other countries that also fought for democracy during the Cold War. There are also concerns about the use of the word "free". During the Cold War battle between ideologies, African, Asian, and South American countries, which cannot clearly be defined as democracies and therefore “free”, supported the United States and Western Europe. Currently, countries with non-democratic governments can be considered free.

again the ignorance of the US in thinking this....

The US or the US president has no power over me or anyone else in the world...they can think that all they want, but its truly a sign of how utterly arrogant they really are

[Hondo]

Mr. Jan Yeo, the exact same laws in the use of deadly force in any given jurisdiction in this country apply equally to citizens and the police. Grand Juries examine the facts in all of them, and either issue a true bill or a no bill of indictment.

You. being English and not living here, don't have any need to concern yourself with it then.

[Jag_Warrior]

You knew full well what I meant. Kills during war seem to be ok (not sure why) and cops are entitled to kill but have to spend a very long time proving that it was justified.

Yes, I know what you meant. I was simply posing the question as to why it would be "murder" (as you said) if one person defends his life by taking the life of another, and it would not be "murder" when another does the exact same thing in the exact same circumstances? Is there a general belief there that the lives of some are worth more than the lives of others?



For the rest of us it counts as murder and I was always taught at college that self defence is not a defence to murder, murder being 'the unlawful killing of another being with malice aforethought'.

If you look at the definition you provided, I don't believe we are in disagreement.



That might just be me getting my A-level law wrong but that's what my tutor told me.

I think so.



This whole .22 thing comes from you lot, I merely said small calibre (TBH anything that can do enough to stop people without spreading their face all over the wall)

People have different preferences. I prefer the .40 cal., specifically the Glock 22. Some prefer 9mm's, .357 Mags, .38's and even .380's. These would be considered medium calibers by most. You don't really get into big bore pistols until you start talking about .44 Mags, .454's, .45 Mags and the newer .500's and .50 Mags. To be honest with you, I choose calibers and ammunition based on penetration... that of the intended target and adjacent objects (walls or doors). In defense of my home or person, I would worry not at all about the well being of the criminal. But I would concern myself with the safety of a loved one in an adjacent room. But if (IF) one chooses to have a gun in the home, one should be at least as well versed in safety protocols as accuracy. BTW, that's another jab at Dick Cheney - gotta get the last dig in before the helicopter clears the trees.




Which I guess comes back to my point about our countries being different. Over there you are advised by law enforcement to have a gun and use it if you deem it necessary, over here it most of us don't own guns and I don't think would ever be advised to use one anyway.

It really depends on where you live here. Not every state or city is as gun friendly as every other one. But I take your point. There are a number of cultural differences between the two countries. You guys still drink that warm beer and call soccer "football" too , doncha? :D





We can spend all day finding exceptions but ultimately you accept my point that there are guns designed to kill while no car would be built with that purpose in mind?

Of course.





I wouldn't be so sure that they'd disapprove over the highlighted 3, the world was a different place 200 years ago

You missed your calling in comedy. :p : I mean they'd be shocked to see the crack and heroin epidemic of the 80's, AIDS, crack babies, unwed mothers being the norm in many communities, drunk and/or stoned 18 year old girls showing their stuff etc. I think most would be pleased that women can now vote, that slavery has been abolished... and Thomas Jefferson might wonder if Obama was one of his great, great, great (unspoken of) grandsons or something. He might be downing some of that fine Monticello wine, yelling over to Washington, "Can you believe this s###, Georgie?!" There was certainly a good amount of hypocricy in those days. No doubt, they drank and carroused. But I'm not that old and the world is a far different place today than it was when I was a child - some things better, but other things worse.





I've not actually got a problem with guns themselves because unfortunately they prove to be necessary at times, it's the private ownership in the US that I don't like and the general (broad sweeping statement here) 'gun nut' culture. If I grew up over there then it'd be different but as it is I'm English and just not all that keen on 'the right to bear arms'

Yes, it all has to do with the culture into which we are born. People often forget that the Constitution is a living document. If not, then women would not have the right to vote and George W. Bush could legally have run for a third term (:eek :) . So if our culture changes to the point that it becomes the will of the people to change the 2nd Amendment, then it will be so. But adding amendments was made not so easy on purpose. Just get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States to agree and all of us gun totin' nuts will disarm... or maybe we'll go take over Mexico. :bandit:



Sadly I think that the US claimed that title back in 2001 :mark:

After he leaves office, I think Obama should open for the Rolling Stones. I've not seen anything like this in my lifetime.

[Jag_Warrior]

DONT FOOL yourself in thinking that the US is is now the standard bearer for democracy throughout the world...please show me proof of this

Well, Steve, I admit that is my opinion. And I have arrived at that opinion because I'm not aware of any other country that has remained as true to its founding principles as we have. Have serious mistakes been made? Absolutely. But if there is one, then it is my opinion that the U.S. is it. But now, your mileage may vary.



DONT FOOL yourself in thinking that the most watched event in the history of the mankind (according to CNN) is taking place right now. And it's taking place in the United States.

Just goes to show how ignorant alot of people in the US really are


You know, Steve, I almost always attempt to treat people with respect on here, whether I agree with them or not. So I can't say that I appreciate you holding my post up as an example of ignorance. So, if it's your desire to be a smart ass when addressing me, I will treat you in the same manner. I don't like to be like that. But it is one of the things I'm good at, so it's your call. Why not grow up and speak as a mature, intelligent adult would, eh?

As I commented in my post, that is what CNN reported. You must know for a fact that this is not correct? It seems as if you have an issue with that. So, since you have made yourself the judge of all intelligent discourse, you must have access to the global viewership data.

Unlike my opinion about democratic standard bearers (which would be subjective, no matter the claim), this is a simple matter of one viewership figure being bigger than all others. Since you apparently know that CNN was incorrrect, you must know what their number is, and you must know what event provided a higher viewership number, and what that event is.

So what is it? Sometime today would be nice.

I anxiously await this tidbit of knowledge... so as to escape the darkness of ignorance.

[Easy Drifter]

Canada's gun laws are fairly strict. Handguns have had to be registered since the 30's and it is hard to get a licence and even harder to get a carry permit. Automatic weapons are basically banned.
All guns are supposed to be registered, as brought in by the previous Liberal (party) Govt. The cost overrun was close to a billion dollars. It is totally screwed up still with mistakes by the thousands.
The current Conservative Govt. is not enforcing the registration law but if you are caught with an unregistered gun big trouble.
They want to abolish the long gun Registry but are in a minority position and the other parties are for the Registry.
To a large extent people in the big cities want the Registry or a total ban, excluding most prairie cities.
People in the country are generally against the Registry.
There are still a large number of people who hunt to eat or supplement their diets.
Amost all who live in the 'wilds' have guns, usually rifles and or shotguns.
When I lived on a very rural street (about 20 homes in a mile) the majority had guns. Some were even registered. Most were not. The ones that were were normally hunters. My neighbors had a registered rifle. They also had another rifle, 2 shotguns and a .38 revolver that were not registered.
I suspect from personal knowledge there are more unregistered long guns in Canada than registered ones.
The complex where I live now has a firearms ban and pretty well all communities have a ban on firearm use within their boundries.
The major problem is the 'gang bangers' for some strange reason do not seem to obey the law. :rolleyes:
Idiots like the Mayor of Toronto call for a total ban on handguns. Like the bad guys are going to pay attention. :dozey:

[MrJan]

Idiots like the Mayor of Toronto call for a total ban on handguns. Like the bad guys are going to pay attention. :dozey:

I like this attitude, sort of giving up but trying to wrap it up as something nicer. Guns will never, ever be gotten rid of, there will always be bad men doing bad things with them but sometimes it's worth trying.

In 1996 in the UK there was a tragedy known as the Dunblane Massacre, an unstable bloke burst into a school with a handgun and shot a load of 5 year olds and a teacher. Although there was a suggestion that to pass legislation would just be knee jerk (the bloke was a legal gun owner) eventually public pressure led to a much tighter legislation on handgun ownership.

Now I don't know the statistics surrounding this, or indeed if it had any real effect at all, but I do remember as a kid seeing images of piles of guns which had been handed in to the police. My feeling is that if there aren't as many guns available then the bad guys will find it more difficult to get hold of weapons.

Now that might be an idealistic feeling but I don't see why it receives such criticism as an idea. Of course I accept that it could never work properly, especially on that side of the pond. Even if the ban was nationwide then links with Mexico and the sheer size of the states anyway would probably make it fairly easy to skirt round, but I don't see why there is such a bad attitude when people suggest stuff like this.

[Jag_Warrior]

Here's the basic problem I have with gun control debates: very few people who support stricter or more laws ever want to discuss the laws that are already on the books... so they can't explain to me why if those laws aren't being effectively enforced, what more or stricter laws would do.

How is it that members of the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, Sicilian/American mafia, Russian/Israeli mob, Mexican cartels, etc. have full and free access to automatic weapons, while these types of weapons are strictly regulated and are not freely available in the U.S.? Why aren't the current laws working? Why aren't the enforcement (and judicial) arms able to deal with this real and growing problem???

It's the same with laws dealing with the financial system: if the enforcement arms are asleep at the wheel, what will more laws do?

[Rollo]

Now I don't know the statistics surrounding this, or indeed if it had any real effect at all, but I do remember as a kid seeing images of piles of guns which had been handed in to the police. My feeling is that if there aren't as many guns available then the bad guys will find it more difficult to get hold of weapons.

Your feeling would be correct - it certainly did in Australia.
Australia learnt a lesson after Martin Bryant turned a weapon on 11 innocent victims, then passed tougher control laws.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
"From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide,

[Hondo]

Criminals are difficult to catch. Spectacular and immediate results are easier to get if you target the law abiding.

Politician: Since the passage of my gun control act of blah blah...we have removed 20,000 guns from the street!

Sheep: Baaaa! Baaaaa! ( Wow! This guy is my kind of guy!)

Reality: None of the guns came from the street, They came from the law abiding when the law went into effect. The guns that were on the street are still there but their black market resale value doubled.

[MrJan]

Here's the basic problem I have with gun control debates: very few people who support stricter or more laws ever want to discuss the laws that are already on the books... so they can't explain to me why if those laws aren't being effectively enforced, what more or stricter laws would do.

How is it that members of the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, Sicilian/American mafia, Russian/Israeli mob, Mexican cartels, etc. have full and free access to automatic weapons, while these types of weapons are strictly regulated and are not freely available in the U.S.? Why aren't the current laws working? Why aren't the enforcement (and judicial) arms able to deal with this real and growing problem???

It's the same with laws dealing with the financial system: if the enforcement arms are asleep at the wheel, what will more laws do?

Because when something is heavily regulated it is still about, if something is 100% illegal (as in you ain't having one of these no matter how many checks we do on you) then it's harder to acquire.

I can't answer why the current laws don't work properly but I do know that in the UK where the laws are stricter we have less murders by shooting (someone posted some stats on this earlier, not sure if it was this thread though :mark: ) Unfortunately the current problem seems to be stabbings which the media keeps telling us have risen dramatically. Don't bother asking if I want to ban knifes too :p :

TBH I think that the problem lies in the hands of manufacturers. There are weapons out there which just aren't built for either combat or hunting. Unfortunately the global market means that you'd need a worldwide law to sort it all out. Basically guns are here to stay, there will always be bad men doing bad things with them, but I still don't see why it is necessary for your average Joe to have a f*** off big gun in his home and no argument or qualification that you put across will stop this. It's not that I am being stubborn or refuse to accept your POV, it's just that truthfully I can't quite comprehend it :)

[Hondo]

Oh hell, some woman in Houston just nailed a guy in the chest with a bow and arrow....you just know what's coming next, don't you.

[Jag_Warrior]

but I still don't see why it is necessary for your average Joe to have a f*** off big gun in his home and no argument or qualification that you put across will stop this. It's not that I am being stubborn or refuse to accept your POV, it's just that truthfully I can't quite comprehend it :)

It likely has more to do with upbringing and cultural differences. We can agree to disagree. No problem there.

[Camelopard]

Oh hell, some woman in Houston just nailed a guy in the chest with a bow and arrow....you just know what's coming next, don't you.

Theme song to Robin Hood?

[chuck34]

Because when something is heavily regulated it is still about, if something is 100% illegal (as in you ain't having one of these no matter how many checks we do on you) then it's harder to acquire.

I can't answer why the current laws don't work properly but I do know that in the UK where the laws are stricter we have less murders by shooting (someone posted some stats on this earlier, not sure if it was this thread though :mark: ) Unfortunately the current problem seems to be stabbings which the media keeps telling us have risen dramatically. Don't bother asking if I want to ban knifes too :p :

TBH I think that the problem lies in the hands of manufacturers. There are weapons out there which just aren't built for either combat or hunting. Unfortunately the global market means that you'd need a worldwide law to sort it all out. Basically guns are here to stay, there will always be bad men doing bad things with them, but I still don't see why it is necessary for your average Joe to have a f*** off big gun in his home and no argument or qualification that you put across will stop this. It's not that I am being stubborn or refuse to accept your POV, it's just that truthfully I can't quite comprehend it :)

That is the crux of the argument. If the baddies are going to have guns, then I (as a law abbiding citizen) should have one too. Just in case one of the baddies gets into my house. You do realise that if a guy breaks into my house, and at that instant I call 911, it will take much longer for the cops to get to my door than it will for the baddie to shoot me, my wife, my kids, and my dog right?

[airshifter]

Not formally they didn't.

The Continental Marines were formed on my birthday Nov 10, 1775 and were then disbanded in 1783. The American Continental Army was founded on June 15, 1775.
Both were disbanded with the formal end of the war with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

It's not exactly "free standing" if it's disbanded is it? Isn't that a non-standing army?

Congress created the US Army on June 14, 1784 after the end of the war. The Marines weren't recreated until 1798.

It's difficult to disband something that doesn't exist. ;)

And as I have said, I tend to believe your point of view. The US Supreme Court does not.