US Gun Laws

[markabilly]

This is a total and utter lie.

Firstly, the Firearms and Ammunition Act or Waffengesetz was issued in 1928, the 1938 regulations mere extended it. It's interesting how you cite something which came from the Weimar Republic and not the Thrid Reich.

Secondly, the Nazis rose to power via the ballot box, not because they disarmed the population. Gun ownership was never widespread in Germany in the first place, so the idea of "disarming" the Jews is bunk. The legislation existed merely as a facade.

Thirdly, it doesn't change the fact that pogroms had been carried out against the Jews for centuries. Even Marthin Luther wrote a treatise entitled "On the Jews and Their Lies" in 1543. There was a pogrom in Poland against the Jews in 1919, and even one in Limerick in Ireland in the 1890s.

Fourthy, Kristallnacht or "Night of Broken Glass" in which 91 Jews were killed and 300,000 people were sent to concetration camps, was on the 9th of November 1938, but the "Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons" which you cited, wasn't passed until the 11th. How does a regulation take force before it exists?

Jewish people in the Third Reich were exterminated with the help of a fully mobilised army, and the complicitousness of the German people.
Not only have you misrepresented the actual mechanics of the dates of history, but also centuries of anti-Semitism. Well done.


You idiot, that is not what i said. I said nothing about dates or anything else except they should not have been dying like sheep, shoving their relatives into gas chambers.....

As I said, if the jews had guns, knew how to use them, and some backbone, there wuld have been far more dead nazis along with fewer dead jews, jews dying like hereos instead of cowardly sheep

The old israelis of the 50's and 60' knew that lesson will and fought hard (much to the disgust of girlies like eki and other whimps) though I wonder if is there is that much backbone in the newer generation

[markabilly]

and this is where it and others who act as sheep end up---your Russian bear in action:

http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/files/2009/12/polar1.jpg

[AAReagles]

Again, arms generally and firearms specifically, their purpose and reason for existence is to deprive someone of their "life, liberty and happiness".

The logic doesn't follow. If you wish to promote "life, liberty and happiness" then how does something which destroys all three, achieve this?

Like I said before, (this debate) it's a dead issue - sorry no pun intended.

In two words: self-preservation. Anyone trying to BS around that fact isn’t fooling anybody.

You may not like it, I may not like it, but it's the real world. If it wasn't, then there would be no need for national security; not only between nations but within the borders that are governed.

Think about it.





Oh well I did try for a reasoned discussion. Why is it so easy to slip into this malaise? Perhaps this is why we need government control, to protect us from ourselves.


So let me get this straight, you said in your very first post that…



I have a perfect respect for peoples opinions…

My view is that we can't do much about the proliferation of guns in the US, but we should start to look at much stiffer regulations governing ownership.

I know that is an anathema to some but it turns my stomach every time I hear a news story about a shooting - accidental or otherwise.

There's no question that which ever side of the fence you sit none of us want to see innocent people die. So how do we meet in the middle!?


… and yet you’re all for more govt control? So you respect people’s opinions but hey, let’s just shove Uncle Sam further into our lives… what the hell.

Just curious, but did you read anything in the Wikileaks thread?

Perhaps even more important, relating to the topic on hand, are you even aware of the gun laws here in California? As well as the violence that still persists in the state?

Better yet, why don’t you tell me who are the most victims of gun violence in this country.

If you’re stomach is churning, and you don’t want to see innocent people die then perhaps you should get better acquainted with the black communities that have been dealing with this for decades. Which subsequently leads me to ask you this as well; why do you suppose that problem came about? Because of guns? Guess again.

And while we’re at, let’s talk about the international arms trade industry. That’s a Really good place to start if anyone cares to reduce gun violence in the world.

Look man, I don’t care for the troglodytes that show up to Tea-Party rallies, with weapons slung over their shoulders, but listening (or watching) barking moonbats on whatever “progressive” network they function on isn’t the answer either. In fact they’re just as predictable on gun violence stories as right-wingers are on issues of immigration.

I still have some liberal tendencies from my earlier years, but that doesn’t mean I’m inclined to trust mankind of any shape or form… govt or not, to allow myself to be indoctrinated by forfeiting a basic right to defence.

[markabilly]

it all goes back to the intense desire to control others, destroy for the glory of it.....

even funnier is how so many of the idealists have tried to dream of societies where that would not happen , yet it always has.

The so called marxist revolution in russia, ending with Stalin murder of 20 million or mao dream of the peasant revolution leading to the deaths of 40 or 50 million.

and it plays out in your own home, on your own televsion. In the last 60 years of oscar winners for best picture, name how many films did not have a major role of gun violence, killings or threat of killing or serious bodily injury as part of its theme.

Name them. Just google the best picture winners and see it for yourself.

[markabilly]

in 2009, the 30 top selling DVDs,, there were 11 did not have a theme of violence. Take from this 11 those that were intended for the 13 years and under market, and we are down to three.

and even with the 11, there were strong overtones of violence

[AAReagles]

it all goes back to the intense desire to control others, destroy for the glory of it.....

... The so called marxist revolution in russia, ending with Stalin murder of 20 million or moa dream of the peasant revolution leading to the deats of 40 or 50 million..

Further research would indicate that Lenin, Stalin and Mao were neo-Marxists. They took advantage of an ideology no different than how this country distorted 'Liberty and Freedom to all' and manipulated it to their own gain to claim it as 'democracy.'

[markabilly]

17 maybe less, out of the 60.........and very few in the last 20 years, 3 of 20.....

[markabilly]

Further research would indicate that Lenin, Stalin and Mao were neo-Marxists. They took advantage of an ideology no different than how this country distorted 'Liberty and Freedom to all' and manipulated it to their own gain to claim it as 'democracy.'
all of which is that no matter how you want to label it, it is all about the use and obtaining of power through violence, esp. upon those unwilling to fight back.

Been bred into too many people for too many years for it to be otherwise, to the point that it is basic instinct rather than learned behavior

[airshifter]

Define "crime". I don't doubt that shoplifting rate would drop if the shopkeeper had a gun and a license to kill, but I doubt murder and homicide rates would drop.

Murder and homicide rates have dropped as a fact, so doubting it is rather pointless. Essentially every major violent crime category and most property crime categories show a downward trend.

[Rollo]

You idiot, that is not what i said. I said nothing about dates or anything else except they should not have been dying like sheep, shoving their relatives into gas chambers.....

As I said, if the jews had guns, knew how to use them, and some backbone, there wuld have been far more dead nazis along with fewer dead jews, jews dying like hereos instead of cowardly sheep

On what basis? If the rest of Europe wasn't able to defeat the German War effort for several years, then what hope would roughly 500,000 Jews have had? Most of the Jews who went to concentration camps weren't German. At the breakout of World War 2, there were only about 214,000 Jews actually living in Germany.

I know that you "said nothing about dates or anything else", presumably because you never bothered to learn them,and as as result, what you've said has no historical or cultural basis in fact.

[Eki]

and this is where it and others who act as sheep end up---your Russian bear in action:

http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/files/2009/12/polar1.jpg
Looks more like an American bear in Alaska.

[Garry Walker]

Being compliant there's a good chance that you won't have to shoot me. After you leave I'll call the cops, give them your description, invest in a better security system and hope for the best. Posessions are posessions, who really gives a ****

Being compliant wont mean squat if the burglars are agressive, they might still kick the living **** out of you, just for fun. In fact, if I were a burglar and my victim was a male and such a coward that he offered me no resistance at all, I would probably shoot him just to rid the world of such a disgrace


None, and I doubt I ever will. Just like you probably ever will.
Dont worry, a few more years of multi-culturalism for Finland and I am sure your stance will change.


The second thug was sentenced to 3-5 years in jail as it was his first offense, was released early and returned that same day he was released and killed the father in revenge for his accomplice. Sad.
Another win for the liberal brigade - rehabilitation really works.


and speaking of crimes and lack of courage, I found this gallup poll to be interesting as far more people in GB are afraid of walking around at night, and while the murder rate is higher, the overal crime rate is LOWER than the USA

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21346/Crime-Rate-Lower-United-States-Canada-Than-Britain.aspx

And if I wanted, I could play the race card, and throw out of the stats the numbers of murders committed by certain ethnic minorities in the usa, use the numbers of whites committting murder....and the murder rate drops below the GB rate.......... :eek: oh opps we don't want to go there now do we... :eek: .opps opps :eek: opps :eek:

Oh my, calculate with the same percentages of ethnic minorities in GB and USA on a regression scale....and OPPSSS :eek:


Funny, no response from anyone to this post.




The actions of people don't change though, if they have a brain they almost always hand over their belongings.
Brains? Being a complete coward is nowadays called having brains?
I for one prefer to stand up for myself and for my family, no matter the situation. I will never hand over anything to any criminal without fighting back. You have to protect what is yours.



If handguns were banned then they could no longer be sold. The gun manufacturers would either dramatically decrease their production (only producing for the military/law enforcement) or stop all together. Throw in a gun buy-back scheme and the amount of handguns in the country has to diminish over time.

Unfortunately that will never happen because American politicians don't have the will and/or resolve to pass such a law. You can't really blame them because it would seem to be political suicide in the US.

What's needed is a change in American culture that sees guns as a common, if not necessary, household item. The UK and Australia didn't/don't have that culture so it was easy for our politicians to pass such laws.

An idea that works in theory, but in practise - think back to prohibition in US. How did that work out? Guns would be no different.




Unless you live in a hugely dangerous society like the example from SA, you shouldn't need a firearm for protection. The fact that people on here are suggesting burglars are likely to come armed with guns just reinforces the stance that this is more likely if guns are legal in their society.

I think that is not the case at all that all burglars have guns. Some do, in my country they rarely do. But this does not mean that if you are confronted with 2-3 burglars, you should be defenceless. A gun will be great protection for such a case for most people. Espescially for those who are not very competent in self-defence. A baseball bat or a knife in the hands of your average woman or even a man is not of any use for protection at all.

[Eki]

Dont worry, a few more years of multi-culturalism for Finland and I am sure your stance will change.

You think it's multi-culturalism that has made Americans gun-crazy? Too much gun-powder in the melting pot?

[Garry Walker]

You think it's multi-culturalism that has made Americans gun-crazy? Too much gun-powder in the melting pot?

I didnt say that and I am sure that even someone of your obviously limited intelligence is able to comprehend that

[markabilly]

On what basis? If the rest of Europe wasn't able to defeat the German War effort for several years, then what hope would roughly 500,000 Jews have had? Most of the Jews who went to concentration camps weren't German. At the breakout of World War 2, there were only about 214,000 Jews actually living in Germany.

I know that you "said nothing about dates or anything else", presumably because you never bothered to learn them,and as as result, what you've said has no historical or cultural basis in fact.
did you count hitler among the 214,000 jews....he seemed to have enough jewish blood to qualify--very strange this connection he had to being partially jewish, that he wanted power so much that he was willing to go to extreme lenghts to hide this fact. Indeed, one would have thought he would have had some high honors and stautes built to himself in his own hometown, instead he had it destroyed and used as targets for artillery--appreantly so afraid that the truth might leak out somehow.

And then he tried to destroy his fellow jews in this desire for power, that was so strong, he was more than happy to use them and destroy them. Talking about eating your own young

as to the other 300k, they ran to other countries where they were eventually swept up, having chosen to run rather than fight, they ended up the same: DEAD, except most of them died the worthless deaths of cowards.

half a million jews killing one nazi for one jew, would have made a major dent in Naziland

[Mark]

This thread is headed for closure. And trying out the new infractions system!

[shazbot]

Like I said before, (this debate) it's a dead issue - sorry no pun intended.

In two words: self-preservation. Anyone trying to BS around that fact isn’t fooling anybody.

You may not like it, I may not like it, but it's the real world. If it wasn't, then there would be no need for national security; not only between nations but within the borders that are governed.

Think about it.







So let me get this straight, you said in your very first post that…





… and yet you’re all for more govt control? So you respect people’s opinions but hey, let’s just shove Uncle Sam further into our lives… what the hell.

Just curious, but did you read anything in the Wikileaks thread?

Perhaps even more important, relating to the topic on hand, are you even aware of the gun laws here in California? As well as the violence that still persists in the state?

Better yet, why don’t you tell me who are the most victims of gun violence in this country.

If you’re stomach is churning, and you don’t want to see innocent people die then perhaps you should get better acquainted with the black communities that have been dealing with this for decades. Which subsequently leads me to ask you this as well; why do you suppose that problem came about? Because of guns? Guess again.

And while we’re at, let’s talk about the international arms trade industry. That’s a Really good place to start if anyone cares to reduce gun violence in the world.

Look man, I don’t care for the troglodytes that show up to Tea-Party rallies, with weapons slung over their shoulders, but listening (or watching) barking moonbats on whatever “progressive” network they function on isn’t the answer either. In fact they’re just as predictable on gun violence stories as right-wingers are on issues of immigration.

I still have some liberal tendencies from my earlier years, but that doesn’t mean I’m inclined to trust mankind of any shape or form… govt or not, to allow myself to be indoctrinated by forfeiting a basic right to defence.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, and I really don't understand why there has to be so much aggression in many posts. I have an open mind and am willing to listen to other peoples views. Of course I have my own beliefs, I'm not saying there right, far from it. Reading through this thread has opened my eyes to issues I hadn't taken into account. When was the last time a forum poster admitted that?

Is there a need to reduce the number of gun related deaths? Is it a problem in this country? If the answer is yes then how do we, as a society (by that I mean as individuals and with government) go about this? What if, by law every house hold had to have a weapon?

[airshifter]

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, and I really don't understand why there has to be so much aggression in many posts. I have an open mind and am willing to listen to other peoples views. Of course I have my own beliefs, I'm not saying there right, far from it. Reading through this thread has opened my eyes to issues I hadn't taken into account. When was the last time a forum poster admitted that?

Is there a need to reduce the number of gun related deaths? Is it a problem in this country? If the answer is yes then how do we, as a society (by that I mean as individuals and with government) go about this? What if, by law every house hold had to have a weapon?

It's good to see that at least some people have an open mind to the facts on both sides of the debate. For most the opinion is already formed and won't be changed no matter what the facts.

Should we reduce gun related deaths? Sure. But in my opinion if we don't reduce all means of death we have accomplished nothing at all. Dead is dead and to some extent if ever given a choice I think I'd rather be shot than beaten, stangled, or stabbed to death. And as I'm also open to facts/statistics/strong data of other forms I'd be more than open to seeing such information that shows any country did any real change to overall deaths and violent crime by changing gun laws. Austalia and the UK are two examples in which all the real data I have seen shows that the overall murder and violent crime rate trends did not drop, just the means used to commit the crimes.

In the US the homicide rate has been going down for over 30 years and is now less than half it was 30 years ago. Available data shows that rates are dropping even though more and more states are allowing concealed carry of weapons. Even within the last decade the trend is down overall.

From crime statistics pages on the FBI website, bold is my notes.

In 2009, an estimated 1,318,398 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of
5.3 percent from the 2008 estimate.When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2009 estimated violent crime total was 5.2 percent below the 2005 level and 7.5 percent below the 2000 level. 7.5 percent decrese in 10 years.

There were 5.0 murders per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009, an 8.1 percent decrease from the 2008 rate. Compared with the 2005 rate, there was a 12.1 percent decrease in the murder rate; compared with the 2000 rate, a 10.4 percent decrease was recorded. 10.4 percent decrease in 10 years

In 2009, the rate of property crime was estimated at 3,036.1 per 100,000 inhabitants, a 5.5 percent decrease when compared with the rate in 2008. The 2009 property crime rate was 11.5 percent lower than the 2005 rate and 16.1 percent under the 2000 rate. 11.5 percent decrease in 10 years

From multiple links, all available easy from the below link: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/property_crime/index.html

[airshifter]

This thread is headed for closure. And trying out the new infractions system!

Please keep it open for those not causing the issues. TBH sometimes I think there is grey area in what has been allowed in the Chit Chat section, so identification of the offending posts would help. Beyond that I think many of us would prefer the offending posters be removed before closing threads.

[Jag_Warrior]

Please keep it open for those not causing the issues. TBH sometimes I think there is grey area in what has been allowed in the Chit Chat section, so identification of the offending posts would help. Beyond that I think many of us would prefer the offending posters be removed before closing threads.

I think Shazbot was sincere in his desire to have an open, honest discussion. I don't believe he expected us to join hands and sings songs. But I do think that he was asking that we act like adults as we discuss the issue. Clearly there are people on both sides of the issue who are unable or unwilling to do that. But that's typically the case on every controversial topic that is presented here.

Rather than close the thread, I think it would be more fair to Shazbot, and everyone else who can discuss this in a civil manner, to just pass out infractions to those who just want to show how well they can insult other posters.



What if, by law every house hold had to have a weapon?

I would be opposed to this as well. I believe that people should have a choice as to whether or not they want a firearm in their home. For a variety of reasons (family situation, religion, roommates, etc.), this would not be something that wouldn't be practical either.

[shazbot]

Thanks for the input guys - it really is appreciated. You are correct in that I wanted this thread to be a discussion without resorting to tit for tat rebukes, and ideally for those with opposing views to try and swap sides as it were. It is interesting that homicide rates have dropped in the last 30 years. If your statistics are correct (I'm not doubting them as I haven't researched it fully myself) then why? Halving of the number of homicides in 30 years is significant. I wonder if fatal shootings follow the same trend? If so why? It would also be interesting to see if there is any trend in the number of mass shootings (2 or more fatalities perhaps?) as it's this scenario that prompted this thread. Jumping forward 30 years I wonder if the '08, '09 and '10 statistics will show any change to the trend given the economic climate, or is this relatively insignificant factor?

My suggestion about every house hold having to have a weapon was more an idea of taking the extreme of the argument that weapons decrease the likelihood of guns being used in crime. If our society was so utterly saturated with guns would we all shoot each other, or would we all tread very carefully? I agree that we should have the choice, but it's interesting to think about. We try to teach our children sex education to help prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy so should we teaching our children how to use, maintain and operate safely guns? On the surface this may seem frightening to have kindergarten kids playing with dummy guns but would this help in the long term. Again this is not a point of view of mine, just an area to discuss!

[markabilly]

I'm watching this thread with interest, and hope it doesn't get closed as its generated good debate. Any chance we can have the anti semitic posts taken off as not only are they factually incorrect, but offensive to anyone with knowledge of WWII? Its also off topic and irelevant so it would be bad to have a good thread closed just for this IMO... :)

I apologize to the extent that there are those who think my comments are anti-semitic. For such was not my intent. What happened to the jews at the hands of the nazis is why I applaud Israel for having learned well from those lessons about what happens when you depend upon others for your safety and refuse to act strong to defend yourself. It is a hard lesson, one that they should never forget. Interesting is how over the years some jews have echoed the same thoughts about gun control:
http://www.jtf.org/israel/israel.why.jews.must.oppose.gun.control.htm;

And I wrote too broadly, for example there was the (1)Warsaw ghetto uprising, (2)the revolt at Treblinka extermination camp with stones and clubs, that actually resulted in shutting down the camp and caused many problems for the nazis, (3) Birkenau was another, there is even a movie about it ----- where they used hammers and stones to kill guards and seize their weapons, and they destroyed crematoriums that were never rebuilt. Most of those died harsh deaths, but at least they fought, before being murdered. In the warsaw ghetto, the jews with only arms seized from nazis after beating them down with hands, stones and clubs, were all they had, yet they held out much longer than the French army that was MUCH LARGER THAN THE GERMAN ARMY, did at the beginning of the war. http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1998-no-frames/resistance.htm

Unfortunately mostly too late to be all that effective. But for the defeatist who say, gee what chance did they have against machine guns??, well this type of thinking is exactly why jews were rounded up for mass murder, along with gypsies and others, as there is always a chance. Indeed the very act of resistance sparks an example for others to follow--and jews did succeed with stones and clubs against machine guns when they found the willingness to fight.

as to Hitler, yep the scholars disagree as to the possible jewish history of Hitler......in Naziland, such making such comments implying he was anything less than pure were likely to lead to a quick death. But it can not be disputed as to what hitler did with his own "hometown". He was obsessed with his ancestry, and spent much effort to ensure it was officially what he wanted it to be. "History" is often unreliable--the russians have long claimed to posses a skull fragment with a bullet hole that belonged to Hitler, but when it was tested, that fragment turned out to be from a female.....but the russians have continued to make this claim

And there are those DNA tests, that show in hitler's bloodline relatives, the evidence of DNA showing both a jewish and black origin:



A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews ...

Haplogroup E1b1b1, which accounts for approximately 18 to 20 per cent of Ashkenazi and 8.6 per cent to 30 per cent of Sephardic Y-chromosomes, appears to be one of the major founding lineages of the Jewish population.


Ann Frank was Ashkenazi.....so the point is that there is a black side to human nature, and depending merely on others (even with the same background as your own) to keep you safe, is very foolish.

But continue to run on about stats. At the end of the day, they mean nothing when the stuff comes knocking on your door, unless you have a gun very handy

[Daniel]

Please keep it open for those not causing the issues. TBH sometimes I think there is grey area in what has been allowed in the Chit Chat section, so identification of the offending posts would help. Beyond that I think many of us would prefer the offending posters be removed before closing threads.

The thing which really gets me on this thread is people calling other people cowards or sheep or whatever because they don't feel the need to have a gun.

[Bob Riebe]

The thing which really gets me on this thread is people calling other people cowards or sheep or whatever because they don't feel the need to have a gun.
I do not remember that happening, though I could be wrong, what is highly criticized is those who do not think others should have fire-arms, should be disarmed, or should not be allowed the choice, for some sky-is-falling reasoning that fire-arms make people zombies that automatically want to go out and shoot anyone that moves.

[Daniel]

I do not remember that happening, though I could be wrong, what is highly criticized is those who do not think others should have fire-arms, should be disarmed, or should not be allowed the choice, for some sky-is-falling reasoning that fire-arms make people zombies that automatically want to go out and shoot anyone that moves.

That is certainly not the case. The vast majority of gun owners are resposible people of course. The problem is that we're not dealing with something inconsequential here, we're dealing with life and death! There is quite literally nothing more important.

Have a read of Markabilly's posts over the last few pages, the amount of times he's called people sheep or cowards is just hilarious :laugh:

[Roamy]

I find it very interesting that the TIRE's are so worried about our guns. The Islams are streaming into the EU at a record pace. The largest trojan horse imaginable. The Islams whack 25 to a 100 in one outing. It is unfortunate but we are allowing them to stream in here as well. In the future a gun will be about as important as a sling shot. And if you don't think so go do a little research on binary explosives. Thats what you guys will be dealing with and we at a point later.

[Jag_Warrior]

My suggestion about every house hold having to have a weapon was more an idea of taking the extreme of the argument that weapons decrease the likelihood of guns being used in crime. If our society was so utterly saturated with guns would we all shoot each other, or would we all tread very carefully? I agree that we should have the choice, but it's interesting to think about. We try to teach our children sex education to help prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy so should we teaching our children how to use, maintain and operate safely guns? On the surface this may seem frightening to have kindergarten kids playing with dummy guns but would this help in the long term. Again this is not a point of view of mine, just an area to discuss!

I understood where you were coming from. But actually, in the area where I live, I would say that most households possess at least one firearm. They may not have Glocks, Sigs and AK's, but they probably have at least a shotgun, a rifle and/or a pistol of some sort. And I'm not trying to be funny or insulting, but when I grew up in this area, most any boy who didn't know how to shoot was probably seen playing with the girls at recess. That's just the way it was here. I was gone for a number of years, and things have obviously changed quite a bit in that time. But the one thing that hasn't changed is that this is still a gun loving area, yet it is relatively light when it comes to violent crimes, especially those involving firearms. That's why I said that one has to look deeper than just firearms ownership as we discuss reducing violent crime. Even though we have more guns per capita than many other places, we seem less anxious to use those guns against our fellow humans. And the people who do use guns to solve their issues tend to fall into the same socio-economic groups as the people who use guns to settle scores or commit crimes in other areas. A couple of people here would just like to point to race or ethnicity as the sole determining factor (because that's how certain people think ;) ). But I would argue that you could more easily look at income and education. The race and ethnicity correlation will fall apart once income and education are brought into the mix. So if I was building a Pareto, I'd look at those factors, as well as types of firearms used to commit crimes. On both sides of the issue, I'm sure there would be surprises that neither side would like to see. And that explains why I've never been voted Most Popular Employee at any company I've worked for. If you allow yourself to be guided by facts and data, rather than preconceived notions, your ability to worship at a particular altar sometimes gets messed with.

I support schools that (voluntarily) use the NRA's Eddie the Eagle gun education program for younger children. But I do not want to see children getting the idea that guns are toys or that a gun provides a quick way to solve a personal problem with another person. We have so many parents who aren't really parents though, I'm not sure how successful the schools would be in teaching kids right from wrong, when they can't even do an acceptable job of teaching them how to read & write or add & subtract as it is now.

[shazbot]

I think I'd rather be playing with girls at recess :kiss:
Right that's my one flippant post out the way, sorry.

[markabilly]

Yep, real funny, but I have not been calling folks murderers, crazy and all the rest because they have the backbone to stand up and defend themselves against thugs rather than running away:

Erm it's a moot point. If I didn't know any better I'd say that English isn't your first language :laugh:


With all due respect, the content of his posts is drivel.

You can't use words with a completely different meaning to the intended message and expect people to understand let alone take you seriously.....


markabilly, with respect, your posts on this topic have become nonsensical. This is not a case of me, nor anyone else, avoiding the issue — it is, however, a case of you being in possession of an extremely skewed, paranoid, Americo-centric worldview.


markabilly, I am sorry, but your posts strike me increasingly as being the ramblings of an ill mind.


Doesn't matter how you dress it up. Killing someone for punching you in the face is murder.


Markabilly, Don't call me a coward because you're so scared that the big black bogey man is going to come and rape you and your inflatable doll, which scares you so much that you have to sleep with a gun under your pillow. I have a choice of where I live and if I honestly thought my life was in any unreasonable danger then I'd move. .....



You really are not all that intelligent are you? :laugh:
:


Yes, I agree, you are ignorant Markabilly.

[markabilly]

Then why not just comply? My Uncle in South Africa was carjacked. He gave them the keys and they drove away. If he'd tried to reach for a gun he would most likely have been shot and killed, for what? A Mercedes Benz which was insured and replaced by the insurance company?

No one wants to be robbed, but I have even less of a desire to be shot, stabbed or beaten.

so obtain the means to defend yourself and Caroline, or do not, but do not advocate stripping those means from others and that they should run away or "move"



.

If someone tries to break into our house they can have all of our posessions, they're insured FFS!!!!! It's not worth the risk of getting killed or having to kill another human being :crazy:

so be it, but strange how there are some who really strenously disagree and why they do:
read it
http://www.jtf.org/israel/israel.why.jews.must.oppose.gun.control.htm

[schmenke]

You idiot, ...

Honestly mkbilly, calm down. Your constant slander of others in this debate contributes nothing to your argument, and indeed just the opposite, has the effect of disparaging your views.

Although highly opinionated, this thread doesn’t have to resort to name-calling.

[schmenke]

If handguns were banned then they could no longer be sold. The gun manufacturers would either dramatically decrease their production (only producing for the military/law enforcement) or stop all together. Throw in a gun buy-back scheme and the amount of handguns in the country has to diminish over time.

Unfortunately that will never happen because American politicians don't have the will and/or resolve to pass such a law. You can't really blame them because it would seem to be political suicide in the US.
...

Not to mention the fact that firearms manufacturing and exporting is a major contributor to the total US GDP.

[schmenke]

There are people who are always going to go nuts, and become the wolf among the sheep.
...

Yep, just like mentally imbalanced Jarred Loughner in Tuscon who, with nothing more than a bit of cash and a few boxes checked on a form, walked out of a shop with a semi-auto Glock 19, ammo and a couple of 30-round magazines.

Too bad ~20 others that day weren't packing concealed weapons. The shoot-out once Jarred opened up would have made great television coverage.

[schmenke]

Sgt york, with a bolt action rifle, took out a whole bunch of germans who were using machine guns...

Careful, Sgt York, although undeniably a hero, had his exploits greatly embellished by the media.

[Bob Riebe]

Yep, just like mentally imbalanced Jarred Loughner in Tuscon who, with nothing more than a bit of cash and a few boxes checked on a form, walked out of a shop with a semi-auto Glock 19, ammo and a couple of 30-round magazines.

Too bad ~20 others that day weren't packing concealed weapons. The shoot-out once Jarred opened up would have made great television coverage.To your first point-- so what?

To your second point- I believe you have used that prattle line before and it is getting more silly each time.

[airshifter]

Thanks for the input guys - it really is appreciated. You are correct in that I wanted this thread to be a discussion without resorting to tit for tat rebukes, and ideally for those with opposing views to try and swap sides as it were. It is interesting that homicide rates have dropped in the last 30 years. If your statistics are correct (I'm not doubting them as I haven't researched it fully myself) then why? Halving of the number of homicides in 30 years is significant. I wonder if fatal shootings follow the same trend? If so why? It would also be interesting to see if there is any trend in the number of mass shootings (2 or more fatalities perhaps?) as it's this scenario that prompted this thread. Jumping forward 30 years I wonder if the '08, '09 and '10 statistics will show any change to the trend given the economic climate, or is this relatively insignificant factor?



I haven't seen any long tem stats on the percentage of homicides that take place with a gun, but the short term stats show the percentage is fairly stable. As for the mass murder type stuff not much is available that I have seen. You can find info on the big incidents but not a lot on those that murder 2 or 3 people, regardless of weapon type.

All long term trends that I have seen for other countries seem to follow the same path, with up and down swings that may last 40-50 years. Really any single law changes would be nothing more than a possibly blip in a short term trend. Being that all this data hasn't really led anyone to a perfect solution I would venture to say that the total number of influences are much greater than we think. Being we have a higher rate than most developed first world nations reducing the number might be easier. But there also seems to be a point at which all large countries have stayed within a certain margin of their historical percentages of homicide.

As for statistics going into this decade the FBI stats I showed go through 2009. So apparently the state of the economy alone won't sway violent crime to a greater level.

I'm not sure about the "everybody has guns" idea. I would tend to think everyone would tread lightly but it may just create an easy avenue for criminals as well. As for educating children, I personally think it would be a good thing. Alcohol and drug education seems to have helped some with reducing drunk driving and other substance abuse statistics. I know I was shooting at maybe 5-6 years old and was already well aware of gun safety. Most in any professional field that requires firearms use are very well trained and educated on the effects those weapons may have.

[Azumanga Davo]

I find it very interesting that the TIRE's are so worried about our guns. The Islams are streaming into the EU at a record pace. The largest trojan horse imaginable. The Islams whack 25 to a 100 in one outing. It is unfortunate but we are allowing them to stream in here as well. In the future a gun will be about as important as a sling shot. And if you don't think so go do a little research on binary explosives. Thats what you guys will be dealing with and we at a point later.

What's it like hiding under the sofa every other day?

[schmenke]

To your first point-- so what?

To your second point- I believe you have used that prattle line before and it is getting more silly each time.

Point 1: Do you not find it even a tad distressing that a mentally disturbed individual can walk out of a shop with no background check with a pistol, ammo and large-capacity magazines, then within hours, use these to shoot 20 people? Do you not think that minimum regulations such as a mandatory background check and/or waiting period, would be a reasonable precaution when purchasing a firearm?
Sure, the 2nd Amendment allows individuals to carry firearms, but minimum prequalifying precautions do not infringe upon that right.

Point 2: Do you believe that had some of the bystanders been armed, that the Tuscon tragedy could have been averted? Or can you perhaps imagine the carnage if free-for-all type of firefight ensued if everyone pulled out their guns and started firing?

I'm not saying it would happend, just asking to consider the possibility.

[Jag_Warrior]

There already is a mandatory background check. By Federal law, anyone not in possession of a concealed weapons permit must undergo and pass an FBI background check when buying from a licensed firearms dealer. Jared Loughner DID undergo a background check when he bought his pistol, and he passed it. But Arizona is one of the worst states in uploading those identified in their mental health database to the federal government. Either Loughner wasn't yet in the database, or if he was, Arizona had not yet forwarded that information to the Feds. People are still looking into his situation (medical and military). But as certain records are private in the U.S., I doubt that EVERYTHING will ever come out.

The only thing we know right now is that he had not been declared mentally unfit to own or possess a firearm by a court of law in the U.S.

[schmenke]

Thanks for the clarification Jag, I hadn't realised that.

[Bob Riebe]

Point 1: Do you not find it even a tad distressing that a mentally disturbed individual can walk out of a shop with no background check with a pistol, ammo and large-capacity magazines, then within hours, use these to shoot 20 people? Do you not think that minimum regulations such as a mandatory background check and/or waiting period, would be a reasonable precaution when purchasing a firearm?
Sure, the 2nd Amendment allows individuals to carry firearms, but minimum prequalifying precautions do not infringe upon that right. Yes it does eliminate pre-qualifying etc., what it does not prevent is removing that that right from those who have voided their rights by their actions.
The exceptions, not the general rule.

To remove the rights of one million because a one may commit a crime is asinne.

Point 2: Do you believe that had some of the bystanders been armed, that the Tuscon tragedy could have been averted? Or can you perhaps imagine the carnage if free-for-all type of firefight ensued if everyone pulled out their guns and started firing? Averted no.

http://www.wnd.com/images/cartoons/toon110112.jpg

I'm not saying it would happend, just asking to consider the possibility.
The possibility no.
That is paranoia based on liberal views of firearms and their owners.

[schmenke]

Rob, if it's paranoia you're looking for, then might I suggest you look within ;)

[Bob Riebe]

Rob, if it's paranoia you're looking for, then might I suggest you look within ;)
Based on what?

I am not the one crying for more restrictions on others, you are.

I cannot imagine this- "Or can you perhaps imagine the carnage if free-for-all type of firefight ensued if everyone pulled out their guns and started firing?"- but you did.

I am actually surprised a new source ran the above cartoon. It is too logical in concept.http://foolstown.com/sm/gun.gif

[Mark in Oshawa]

I for one think that the right to bear arms in the US is one of the most unique things that makes the USA different, and that is a good and bad thing. The bad thing is, loons like Loughner seem to get guns to easily, but at the same time, if one wants to own a gun and is responsible, you are not treated like a potential criminal.

We can agree that too many people die at the hands of guns in the US, but when you look at most of them, there is never any evidence that the people owning the guns take the time and care to learn to use them properly, and in most cases, are being used by criminals to commit criminal acts. Taking the guns away from the sane and solid citizens in society wont make the nuts and criminals give theirs up.

Again, look at a place like Canada or Switzerland where a lot of people own guns also. You don't see the carnage. WHY? I suggest there is something else wrong with American society.....but guns aint the problem. You can argue on what is wrong...I have no clue or answers, but the fact guns are available or not doesn't change the problems many in the USA seem to have with either authority or obeying the law...

[Rollo]

I am actually surprised a new source ran the above cartoon. It is too logical in concept.

The "Crazy Person" has the Second Amendment right to carry a gun in the first place. If he wasn't carrying one, and wasn't empowered to by the law, then no-one would have needed to defend themselves against it.



What's needed is a change in American culture that sees guns as a common, if not necessary, household item.

Operation of the law helped to create the culture in the first place; no-one has yet proved that society is better for it. If you remove the unrestricted "right" or put limits on it, then you end up with the situation below.

http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad297/rollo75/toon110112a.jpg

The "Crazy Person" is still a "Crazy Person" but without the right to right to carry a gun in the first place, then there's less chance of him getting one.

[schmenke]

...I am not the one crying for more restrictions on others, you are.
...

Rob, you are crying for fewer restrictions to allow the possession of firearms for the following (choose any/all that apply):

Defense against the loonies;
Defense against the criminals;
Defense against home invaders;
Defense against the government;
Defense against foreign powers...

If that’s not the suggestion of paranoia I don’t know what is...

[Bob Riebe]

The "Crazy Person" has the Second Amendment right to carry a gun in the first place. If he wasn't carrying one, and wasn't empowered to by the law, then no-one would have needed to defend themselves against it.
Empowered?
Definition of EMPOWER
transitive verb
1
: to give official authority or legal power

You are rationalizing with a false statement.

Operation of the law helped to create the culture in the first place;

Definition of OPERATION

: performance of a practical work or of something involving the practical application of principles or processes

How, by definition your theory falls apart.

no-one has yet proved that society is better for it. If you remove the unrestricted "right" or put limits on it, then you end up with the situation below.

No- no one has proven it is not

``

[Bob Riebe]

Rob, you are crying for fewer restrictions to allow the possession of firearms for the following (choose any/all that apply):

Defense against the loonies;
Defense against the criminals;
Defense against home invaders;
Defense against the government;
Defense against foreign powers...

If that’s not the suggestion of paranoia I don’t know what is...

It is OBVIOUS you do not know what is.

Only one speaking from total ignorance, or paranoid fear of firearms would say the right to self-defense with a firearm is paranoia.

Only an arrogant narcissist would decry- others -the right.

[Bob Riebe]

If you remove the unrestricted "right" or put limits on it, then you end up with the situation below.
http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad297/rollo75/toon110112a.jpg

No we absolutely would not be in that situation as we would have no Congress as we would have no Federal Government- period.

[schmenke]

It is OBVIOUS you do not know what is.

Only one speaking from total ignorance, or paranoid fear of firearms would say the right to self-defense with a firearm is paranoia.

Only an arrogant narcissist would decry- others -the right.

You're missing my point. The right to self defense with a firearm is not paranoia. The fear from any of the above that necessitates self defense with a firearm is.

I’m not paranoid of a fear of firearms. I just don’t understand the culture that so passionately defends their requirement in society. For this lack of understanding, yes, I am ignorant :) .

[Bob Riebe]

You're missing my point. The right to self defense with a firearm is not paranoia. The fear from any of the above that necessitates self defense with a firearm is.

I’m not paranoid of a fear of firearms. I just don’t understand the culture that so passionately defends their requirement in society. For this lack of understanding, yes, I am ignorant :) .
You do not understand yet you decry others the right to armed self-defense given by those who founded the country and Government.

The founding Fathers knew first hand the evil that resides in the heart of governments left un-checked, and the only firm way to put fear in the heart of a governmemtn is an armed society.
The U.K. started disarming civilians after the Irish revolt, the Germans disarmed the Jews.

The U.S. Founding Fathers saw the probablility of such a thing could happening here a hundred plus years before that happened.

The Brazilians voted against stronger gun control- pushed by these narcissistic twits: http://www.iansa.org/regions/samerica/rangel_interview.htm

From: ARMARIA ON-LINE

It is interesting that the CDC Study on firearms deaths in the world
mentions Brazil as the second country in firearms death rate.
Our country has one of the most rigid gun laws in the world. A true
nightmare.
Since 1936 all firearms must be registered. No handguns with
ammunition more powerfull than .38 Special (9mm Short for pistols)
are allowed for civilians. Rifles and carbines are only allowed if they
fire handgun ammunition (the only center fire rifle cartridge allowed
is the vintage .44-40 WCF).
No center fire semi-automatic long gun (rifled or smooth bore) is
permited. Black powder muzzle loading guns are considered
firearms like any other and subject to the same rules.
A Brazilian citizen must not have, at any given time, more than two
handguns, two rifled long guns and two shotguns. Only shooters or
collectors registered within the Brazilian Army may have more guns
than this figures.
Citizens are not allowed to buy more than one gun per year.
Reloading is permited only for shooters belonging to a shooting
club and reloadind supplies are strictly controlled by the Brazilian
Army. Only trough the club is possible to buy reloading supplies.
If one is caught with a gun without a permit, it doesn't matter if it
was being carried or just transported (a registered gun unloaded
and locked inside a box, for instance) - it is a crime and one can
face two years in jail for that (four years if it was a forbidden gun).
Permits for transportation must be obtained at the central police
office downtown and it usually takes a week to be ready.
Officialy carry permits do exist, but is very difficult to get one
(there is a black market for concealed carry licences).
Gun stores are not allowed to sell second hand firearms and taxes
on guns sales are the highest in the world (81%).
Waiting periods for registration average 30 days, but in Rio de
Janeiro state it could reach 3 month.
Obviously, all these controls have lead for a huge black market.
Brazil is one of the few places in the world where one can buy
an illegal handgun cheaper than in gun stores (about one third of
the price for a Brazilian made revolver).
In the neighboring countries there are gangs specialised in
smuggling guns through Brazilian borders. Brazilian drug gang
members carry AR15, M16, SIG 551, HKG3 and AK47 - they
have no problems in gettings these weapons. It is quite common
to see them using tracer bullets in their shootings (also
forbidden for Brazilian citizens).
If one still believes in gun control, Brazil's example is worth
examining.

Of course that is just paranoia.

[Rollo]

I’m not paranoid of a fear of firearms. I just don’t understand the culture that so passionately defends their requirement in society. For this lack of understanding, yes, I am ignorant :) .

For the record Mr Schmenke at law both have the right to bear arms as did the people of the United States because of the Bill of Rights Act 1689.
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Yet somehow Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland all achieved independence not through the use of guns, but the stroke of a pen in 1931.

Heck even Ghandi wrote:
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall — think of it, always.
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."
In the end India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka all also achieved independence through the the stroke of a pen.

Had the United States not fought the War of Independence, then if it was sensible, it would have probably undergone the same process as the other Commonwealth Realms.

[shazbot]

Again, look at a place like Canada or Switzerland where a lot of people own guns also. You don't see the carnage. WHY? I suggest there is something else wrong with American society.....but guns aint the problem. You can argue on what is wrong...I have no clue or answers, but the fact guns are available or not doesn't change the problems many in the USA seem to have with either authority or obeying the law...

A unpalatable as it may be for us in America I wonder if you have hit the nail on the head? There are other countries with similar guns laws, but non of them kill each other with the frequency that we do. Why? I'd like to suggest we move this thread in that direction.

[Bob Riebe]

For the record Mr Schmenke at law both have the right to bear arms as did the people of the United States because of the Bill of Rights Act 1689.
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Yet somehow Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland all achieved independence not through the use of guns, but the stroke of a pen in 1931.

Heck even Ghandi wrote:
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall — think of it, always.
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."
In the end India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka all also achieved independence through the the stroke of a pen.

Had the United States not fought the War of Independence, then if it was sensible, it would have probably undergone the same process as the other Commonwealth Realms.

Oh yes, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh -The military rules of Pakistan refused to allow the Awami League to form a government. Major General Ziaur Rahman on behalf of Mujib declared independence. A full scale movement of non-cooperation with the military government began on the 26th of March, 1971 which is celebrated as the Independence Day every year. Thus Bangladesh plunged into a civil war. - are such civil peaceful societies, unlike the U.S. with globe leading standards of living.

Ghandi would gladly let others be murdered but would not fight to defend them, how brave.

Thank God we did not follow that path.

Your rhetoric falls flat at face value.

[Bob Riebe]

A unpalatable as it may be for us in America I wonder if you have hit the nail on the head? There are other countries with similar guns laws, but non of them kill each other with the frequency that we do. Why? I'd like to suggest we move this thread in that direction.
No give it its own thread.
The Second Amendment and civil problems are not related.

[markabilly]

For the record Mr Schmenke at law both have the right to bear arms as did the people of the United States because of the Bill of Rights Act 1689.
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Yet somehow Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland all achieved independence not through the use of guns, but the stroke of a pen in 1931.

Heck even Ghandi wrote:
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall — think of it, always.
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."
In the end India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka all also achieved independence through the the stroke of a pen.

Had the United States not fought the War of Independence, then if it was sensible, it would have probably undergone the same process as the other Commonwealth Realms.

yeah, a 150 or more years later, after GB had lost its power, strenght and willingness to assert itself, and just a mere 6 or so years or so before Chamberlain would sell out the world to "Herr Hitler", brag about "peace in our time", and give the nazis the Sudenland and Rhineland and the industrial bases upon which they would quickly build up even higher their machinery of war.

As to ghandi, someone like that comes along every now and then, but they are quickly lost in the debris of history, with the ascension to power and later murder of leaders such as Indira Gandhi (who started india down the road to building nuclear weapons that inspired pakistan to do the same)or Bhutto....and when tyrants like hitler fall, they fall at the point of a gun, or just stroke out like Stalin.

meanwhile millions die at their hands.

And cars kill as many or more as guns, so why don't we ban them?? or atleast reduce their horsepower to no more than a 100 as there is just no reason for anymore than that.

Next time don't be calling me a liar. The way i was brought up, those were words that were an invite to someone getting their sweet nuts cut off.

[markabilly]

I for one think that the right to bear arms in the US is one of the most unique things that makes the USA different, and that is a good and bad thing. The bad thing is, loons like Loughner seem to get guns to easily, but at the same time, if one wants to own a gun and is responsible, you are not treated like a potential criminal.

We can agree that too many people die at the hands of guns in the US, but when you look at most of them, there is never any evidence that the people owning the guns take the time and care to learn to use them properly, and in most cases, are being used by criminals to commit criminal acts. Taking the guns away from the sane and solid citizens in society wont make the nuts and criminals give theirs up.

Again, look at a place like Canada or Switzerland where a lot of people own guns also. You don't see the carnage. WHY? I suggest there is something else wrong with American society.....but guns aint the problem. You can argue on what is wrong...I have no clue or answers, but the fact guns are available or not doesn't change the problems many in the USA seem to have with either authority or obeying the law...


As i said before, about playing the race card, when the FBI did a profile based on the typical murderer using a firearm, that person was black. see




and speaking of crimes and lack of courage, I found this gallup poll to be interesting as far more people in GB are afraid of walking around at night, and while the murder rate is higher, the overal crime rate is LOWER than the USA

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21346/Cri...n-Britain.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/21346/Crime-Rate-Lower-United-States-Canada-Than-Britain.aspx)

And if I wanted, I could play the race card, and throw out of the stats the numbers of murders committed by certain ethnic minorities in the usa, use the numbers of whites committting murder....and the murder rate drops below the GB rate.......... :eek: oh opps we don't want to go there now do we... :eek: .opps opps :eek: opps :eek:

Oh my, calculate with the same percentages of ethnic minorities in GB and USA on a regression scale....and OPPSSS :eek:

you white guys in great britain are a nasty bunch of boys

Reminds me of what the former minister of Obama said about FBI study that said the typical killer in the USA is a young black male and the typical victim tends to be black. He said, it is because we need to move to the suburbs so we can find more whites to shoot......


and the FBI study that showed the pofile of the most likely killer to be black, was widely condemned by some folks as continuing to sterotype blacks. And it should be noted that hispanics in most data collections are not distiguished from white, but given relative populations and locations of the murders and so forth, again the percentage of hispanics committing murder is far higher than white percentages...

In any event, the ratio between blacks committing murder compared to whites (which includes Hispanics, arabs and other as white) shows that blacks are murdering people at the rate of 6 to 7 times compared to whites.

There are many theories as to why, and all that, but that is one big difference.


bottom line is that if the ethnic basis of GB was the standard and stats used that matched the number of killings with similar races in the USA, the number of murders committted by whites drops to or below that in GB....

[Tazio]

For the record Mr Schmenke at law both have the right to bear arms as did the people of the United States because of the Bill of Rights Act 1689.
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Yet somehow Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland all achieved independence not through the use of guns, but the stroke of a pen in 1931.

Heck even Ghandi wrote:
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall — think of it, always.
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."
In the end India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka all also achieved independence through the the stroke of a pen.

Had the United States not fought the War of Independence, then if it was sensible, it would have probably undergone the same process as the other Commonwealth Realms.

This really doesnt have a lot to do with the propreity of our current gun laws.

But since we are speculating here, isn't the converse also quite possible?
By defeating (or maybe more appropriately fighting off) Great Britain the most formidable fighting force in the world in two wars
with mostly a rag tag group of determined militia, actually break ground, and put other colonies into a more favorable position to be able to leverage their sovereignty through diplomacy. I'm not saying that I believe I know something you don’t. I’m no expert on the History of Great Britain. Just would like to hear your take on that!

[Rollo]

Oh yes, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh -The military rules of Pakistan refused to allow the Awami League to form a government. Major General Ziaur Rahman on behalf of Mujib declared independence. A full scale movement of non-cooperation with the military government began on the 26th of March, 1971 which is celebrated as the Independence Day every year. Thus Bangladesh plunged into a civil war. - are such civil peaceful societies, unlike the U.S. with globe leading standards of living.

Ghandi would gladly let others be murdered but would not fight to defend them, how brave.

Thank God we did not follow that path.

Your rhetoric falls flat at face value.

Two things wrong with your assertion:
1. From 1947 to 1971 Bangladesh was Pakistani territory.
2. There is no-way that Ghandi could have had anything to do with Bangladesh splitting from Pakistan, he'd been dead since 1948.

[markabilly]

The "Crazy Person" has the Second Amendment right to carry a gun in the first place. If he wasn't carrying one, and wasn't empowered to by the law, then no-one would have needed to defend themselves against it.



Operation of the law helped to create the culture in the first place; no-one has yet proved that society is better for it. If you remove the unrestricted "right" or put limits on it, then you end up with the situation below.

http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad297/rollo75/toon110112a.jpg

The "Crazy Person" is still a "Crazy Person" but without the right to right to carry a gun in the first place, then there's less chance of him getting one.

no you do not, you just have some nutcase using a bomb or a jetliner or a car, doing the same or worse damage.....seems that the latest fad for use in iraq involves garage door openers....

[markabilly]

Oh yes, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh -The military rules of Pakistan refused to allow the Awami League to form a government. Major General Ziaur Rahman on behalf of Mujib declared independence. A full scale movement of non-cooperation with the military government began on the 26th of March, 1971 which is celebrated as the Independence Day every year. Thus Bangladesh plunged into a civil war. - are such civil peaceful societies, unlike the U.S. with globe leading standards of living.

Ghandi would gladly let others be murdered but would not fight to defend them, how brave.

Thank God we did not follow that path.

Your rhetoric falls flat at face value.
amen

[airshifter]

No give it its own thread.
The Second Amendment and civil problems are not related.

And in case you forgot, Shazbot started the thread about gun laws in general and his views, not the Second Ammendment. ;)

[airshifter]

Point 2: Do you believe that had some of the bystanders been armed, that the Tuscon tragedy could have been averted? Or can you perhaps imagine the carnage if free-for-all type of firefight ensued if everyone pulled out their guns and started firing?

I'm not saying it would happend, just asking to consider the possibility.

Have you ever considered that if bystanders were armed and reacted, less people would have died? I can search right now and find links to law abiding citizens with guns getting involved and stopping crimes. Can you find any evidence of law abiding citizens with guns getting involved and killing innocent people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDGvG...e_gdata_player (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDGvG6VlPb4&feature=youtube_gdata_player) At the very end of this news story they make a brief mention that the attack of a couple by 20 or so teens was stopped when a bystander displayed a gun.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/bystander-with-gun-stops-palm-bay-bank-robbery-651230.html Armed bystander stops bank robbery


One of the men that helped subdue Loughner was armed. He actually came onto the scene when they had already taken Loughners weapon, and thought that the person holding the weapon was the shooter. Yet he did not shoot him. Probably because neither him or the man holding the weapon at the time were insane.

[Bob Riebe]

Two things wrong with your assertion:
1. From 1947 to 1971 Bangladesh was Pakistani territory.
2. There is no-way that Ghandi could have had anything to do with Bangladesh splitting from Pakistan, he'd been dead since 1948.

I did not say Ghandi had anything to do with Bangladesh.

You said Bangladesh had no war similar to what the U.S. had, well, you can change history as you wish but you are still wrong.

[Bob Riebe]

And in case you forgot, Shazbot started the thread about gun laws in general and his views, not the Second Ammendment. ;)
IN the U.S. ALL GUN LAWS dance around the Second Amendment, period.

[Roamy]

video games that children are raised on. Plus violent TV. Plus for the kooks the Islams have put a very low value on life. They are teaching the world that death is not so bad.

[Eki]

Have you ever considered that if bystanders were armed and reacted, less people would have died? I can search right now and find links to law abiding citizens with guns getting involved and stopping crimes.
In a crowd, like a political meeting? It's one thing to be in a situation with space around you, so that everyone sees who shot first than in a crowd where no one knows what's happening, who's shooting who and people are in panic.

[shazbot]

No give it its own thread.
The Second Amendment and civil problems are not related.

As airshifter kindly pointed out I started this thread to discuss gun related killings not the Second Amendment. Over the last few pages we seem to be regurgitating the same arguments. The aim of this thread was to look at ways we can reduce fatalities and I think it's entirely within the remit of this debate to look beyond the law and take a closer look at our society. So, with respect can we focus more on that?

[Roamy]

Shazbot
You need further analysis. Of the gun deaths in this country how many are committed where those involved are violent criminals? How many are committed by people with past violent convictions?
1. If it is between two criminals it is probably a good thing.
2. If it was committed by a criminal with a past violent conviction of a significant degree (not a harmless fist fight) then it is the governments fault for releasing violent criminals back to the street.
3. If it is a good person shooting a bad person - that is a good thing
4. How many involved drugs? Especially "Meth"
So basically you need a net figure here and again you won't stop the kooks because if guns are not available they will use explosives.

[markabilly]

As airshifter kindly pointed out I started this thread to discuss gun related killings not the Second Amendment. Over the last few pages we seem to be regurgitating the same arguments. The aim of this thread was to look at ways we can reduce fatalities and I think it's entirely within the remit of this debate to look beyond the law and take a closer look at our society. So, with respect can we focus more on that?

no need. none.

indeed poor ole CCN is moaning on tv over the fact that their poll showed no change in attitude, not budged one inch towards more control, desite all the crying and moaning that it was all the gun's fault :D :D
still a few smart people left

besides second amendment and gun laws go hand in hand

[Roamy]

no need. none.

indeed poor ole CCN is moaning on tv over the fact that their poll showed no change in attitude, not budged one inch towards more control, desite all the crying and moaning that it was all the gun's fault :D :D
still a few smart people left

besides second amendment and gun laws go hand in hand

Can you believe this politician named King came out wanting to adopt a new law that would make it a crime to get within 1000ft of a politician with a firearm. Now here is a prime example of what is wrong in this country. This King guy is sooooooooo freaking dumb he should not be allowed to hold any office at all. This bafoon should be a stockman at Walmart.

[Tazio]

video games that children are raised on. Plus violent TV. Plus for the kooks the Islams have put a very low value on life. They are teaching the world that death is not so bad.
I would add to that list the insistence of not revealing images of the reality of our current military engagements;
The hideous deformation of members of our fighting force, or any serious injury to American military personnel until they have their plastic surgery, and their prosthetics in place, and the use of armed drones lend a rather impersonal facet to the value of life, although I don’t condemn the use of them when the objective is clearly defined with solid intel.

[Daniel]

The question is why would a civilian need to get within a 1000ft of a politian with a gun anyway?? lol.
That sounds more like a reasonable request than a law.

Because it's their right! Don't take away their freedom you coward sheep on your knees TIRE!!!!!

[Bob Riebe]

The question is why would a civilian need to get within a 1000ft of a politian with a gun anyway?? lol.
That sounds more like a reasonable request than a law.
Why should politicians have a non-constitutional right to dis-arm the people he/she supposedly serves.

It is the most paranoid, narcissistic fascist law ever proposed, maybe we should bow when we pass our public servants also.

[Daniel]

Why should politicians have a non-constitutional right to dis-arm the people he/she supposedly serves.

It is the most paranoid, narcissistic fascist law ever proposed, maybe we should bow when we pass our public servants also.

Because they might be a raving lunatic and try to shoot them because they're a politician?

[Bob Riebe]

As airshifter kindly pointed out I started this thread to discuss gun related killings not the Second Amendment. Over the last few pages we seem to be regurgitating the same arguments. The aim of this thread was to look at ways we can reduce fatalities and I think it's entirely within the remit of this debate to look beyond the law and take a closer look at our society. So, with respect can we focus more on that?

This is what you wrote- it is about firearms, not U.S. society and it problems.

You do not like how this is going so you are trying to divert.

In the light of recent tragic events in Arizona perhaps now is as good a time as any to discuss the role of guns in our (American) society. If at all possible lets try and keep this thread civilized . I have a perfect respect for peoples opinions and am genuinely interested to hear the pros and cons. My view is that we can't do much about the proliferation of guns in the US, but we should start to look at much stiffer regulations governing ownership. I know that is an anathema to some but it turns my stomach every time I hear a news story about a shooting - accidental or otherwise. If you believe that we all have a right to firearms I'm interested to know what your thoughts are when this type of incident occurs - primarily how to reduce them. There's no question that which ever side of the fence you sit none of us want to see innocent people die. So how do we meet in the middle!?

[Bob Riebe]

Because they might be a raving lunatic and try to shoot them because they're a politician?Too bad, it comers with the territory.
If it bothers them, get a different job.

[Bob Riebe]

I think I'd have abit of a problem with armed civilians who might not necessarily agree with my policies in a close proximity. If it really is a wild west mentality with people so paranoid they feel they need to stroll around in public places with guns on holsters because its their right to protect themselves, maybe politians should stick to televised debates.

Most of the ingredients of bombs are perfectly legal to obtain yet people don't really appreciate you joining them together and carrying them in a rucksack on a packed tube train. The point is, you don't carry something lethal unless you intend to use it, and if you live in a society where you feel that is necessary, then there's a huge problem IMO.As I said, if it bothers them (or would be you) do not take the job, or get a different job.
Bombs are not covered in the Constitution.

And you are correct anyone carry a firearm had best be prepared to use, or else leave it at home.

[shazbot]

This is what you wrote- it is about firearms, not U.S. society and it problems.

You do not like how this is going so you are trying to divert.

In the light of recent tragic events in Arizona perhaps now is as good a time as any to discuss the role of guns in our (American) society. If at all possible lets try and keep this thread civilized . I have a perfect respect for peoples opinions and am genuinely interested to hear the pros and cons. My view is that we can't do much about the proliferation of guns in the US, but we should start to look at much stiffer regulations governing ownership. I know that is an anathema to some but it turns my stomach every time I hear a news story about a shooting - accidental or otherwise. If you believe that we all have a right to firearms I'm interested to know what your thoughts are when this type of incident occurs - primarily how to reduce them. There's no question that which ever side of the fence you sit none of us want to see innocent people die. So how do we meet in the middle!?

Thanks for your reply. Please don't suggest that I don't like the way this thread is going. I have an open mind to everyones point of view and indeed as I have stated in an earlier post I have learnt some interesting points from both sides and my opinions have been affected by this. It is an entirely logical step for this thread to evolve, rather than going over the same ground. This is why I would like to explore why Canada, for example has similar gun laws but nothing like the mortality rate we have here. One has to look at our society when we explore this point don't you think? Perhaps the agression that some people feel the need to vent here is a symptom of some fundemental issues? Again these are not necesarily my points of view so please don't shoot me down in flames, we are here to discuss not disparage. Thank you.

[schmenke]

... This is why I would like to explore why Canada, for example has similar gun laws ....

???

Canada has vastly different gun laws than the U.S.

[shazbot]

Shazbot
You need further analysis. Of the gun deaths in this country how many are committed where those involved are violent criminals? How many are committed by people with past violent convictions?
1. If it is between two criminals it is probably a good thing.
2. If it was committed by a criminal with a past violent conviction of a significant degree (not a harmless fist fight) then it is the governments fault for releasing violent criminals back to the street.
3. If it is a good person shooting a bad person - that is a good thing
4. How many involved drugs? Especially "Meth"
So basically you need a net figure here and again you won't stop the kooks because if guns are not available they will use explosives.

Good points, but I won't answer each point just so we don't get mired down in specifics - lets just look at innocent people killed by criminals (including those with psycological problems with or without a criminal history). Please see the above post as to the direction I'd like this thred to procede.
Thanks

[shazbot]

OK, please outline the main differences to help me learn and this thread procede.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Shazbot, Canada is like the US in that guns are part of the frontier culture. Like Australia, the country was and still is in many places an untamed wilderness with potential threats, although mainly from rampaging bears. People in Canada still live off the land, and the tradition of hunting, despite the best efforts of the social "elites" is alive and well. Many people own guns in Canada, but unlike the US, our guns are almost always hunting rifles or shotguns. The ownership of handguns is a lot less in Canada, since to own a handgun isn't illegal, but you pretty much have to jump through hoops and justify a need for one AND/OR only use it for target shooting and transport and store it with a lot of restrictions. There is no right to carry a hand gun in Canada.

So this means......we still have street crime. Criminals on the streets still shoot at each other and occasionally the police. Most of the gun crime in Canada is carried out with illegal guns. Yet the politicians are obsessed with registering long guns. THey have done this at great expense, and to date, I am still trying to find one story in the press where having a long gun registry has been of some use.

The fact is, in a society where there is respect for the rule of law, gun laws are not required, and in a society where the respect for the rule of law isn't being respected, well no gun law will stop carnage.

Looking at the UK, all those guys like Moat, and the guy who shot up the school in Dunblane years ago, got their guns illegally, and used them in a criminal and insane act. To ban guns doesn't stop these tragedies. What is more, this naive notion that a free society is free from attack from nut jobs is a sad one. Free societies will have the odd incident that is senseless and a tragedy. The USSR had a great murder rate I am sure if you overlooked the regime's enforcing the law with an iron fist. Would have wanted to live there? God no....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ok Henners, I stand corrected, but lets say that you are then presupposing an incident wont happen like this again because handguns are illegal in the UK? I suspect lots of people still have them....

It isn't the access to weapons that is the problem, your example proves it. IT is the mentally ill who walk the streets and remain either undiagnosed or no one thinks to see the signs of when they are about to go into a killing spree with whatever means available.

It seems to happen more in America, but it is a nation with 300 million plus people....in these sort of incidents, I don't think any western nation is immune to the possibility...

[shazbot]

Thanks for your reply Mark, I hadn't realized hand guns were much harder to obtain.

[schmenke]

Thanks for your reply Mark, I hadn't realized hand guns were much harder to obtain.

Further...

The sale of either automatic or semi-automatic firearms is not permitted.
Single-shot or bolt action rifles are permitted, but a user license is required as well as a registration permit for the rifle. I think the purchase of ammo can only be done by a license holder. I believe also there is a restriction on the magazine capacity.
Concealed weapons are obviously not permitted. Firearms must be stored unloaded in either a lockable cabinet, with the ammo separate, or be equipped with a lockable trigger guard. Similarily, when transported, it must be unloaded in a lockable case, with ammo separate.

That's about the extent of my knowledge. I'm sure there are many details and exceptions that I can't be bothered to look up :mark: .

[Jag_Warrior]

Ok Henners, I stand corrected, but lets say that you are then presupposing an incident wont happen like this again because handguns are illegal in the UK? I suspect lots of people still have them....

I can't remember if it was here or on another board, but does anyone remember the case of the fellow in the UK who found a pistol and then turned it in to the police.... only to be charged with the crime of illegal handgun possession? I don't remember the details, but that was one of the more perverse gun control stories I have ever heard.

BTW, there was a shooting incident at a school in southern California today - I just saw the newsflash on Bloomberg. So at least the people, who are beating this dead horse, will have a new incident to argue about. :p :

[Eki]

OK, nobody can deny that this accidental shooting could not have been avoided, if the kid wasn't carrying a gun:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/police-at-least-3-shot-at-california-high-school/?hpt=T2


A shooting that injured two people at a high school in Gardena, California, on Tuesday was accidental, Los Angeles Unified School District spokesman Rober Alaniz said.

The two injured have been transported to a hospital, Alaniz said. He told CNN affiliate KCAL/KCBS that a student brought the gun to school in a backpack, and when the student dropped the backpack, the gun discharged and wounded two students.

[schmenke]

What are the California gun laws like? I assume gun possession is not permitted by minors (assuming the backpack-packing kid was < 18), especially in high schools?

[Tazio]

What are the California gun laws like? I assume gun possession is not permitted by minors (assuming the backpack-packing kid was < 18), especially in high schools?
Here...have at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

Funny you should ask this happened a couple hours ago.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/california-school-shooting-gardena-high-school-injures/story?id=12640474


A Gardena High senior who was sitting next to students who were shot described a scene of chaos and fear inside the classroom when gunfire erupted Tuesday morning.

Miguel Lopez, 17, said he was in his health class when a gun went off as a male classmate was reaching into his backpack. The student, whose name Lopez did not know, was not pointing the gun at anyone, he said.

Two students sitting next to him in the rear corner of the room were shot, Lopez said. A boy was grazed in the shoulder. A 15-year-old girl next to him was shot in the temple.

"I'm scared and I don't know what's going on," Lopez told the Los Angeles Times by cellphone. Lopez was sitting with classmates inside the dean's office, where they had been escorted by security after the shooting.

Immediately after the gun went off, he said, the student ran out of the classroom. His teacher, Mrs. Jones, began screaming, he said. She ordered everyone out of the classroom just as school security was arriving.

As Lopez was running out, he saw the girl, who school officials said is in critical condition at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.

[Daniel]

Further...

The sale of either automatic or semi-automatic firearms is not permitted.
Single-shot or bolt action rifles are permitted, but a user license is required as well as a registration permit for the rifle. I think the purchase of ammo can only be done by a license holder. I believe also there is a restriction on the magazine capacity.
Concealed weapons are obviously not permitted. Firearms must be stored unloaded in either a lockable cabinet, with the ammo separate, or be equipped with a lockable trigger guard. Similarily, when transported, it must be unloaded in a lockable case, with ammo separate.

That's about the extent of my knowledge. I'm sure there are many details and exceptions that I can't be bothered to look up :mark: .

That is EXTREMELY reasonable and sensible gun law.

[anthonyvop]

OK, nobody can deny that this accidental shooting could not have been avoided, if the kid wasn't carrying a gun:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/police-at-least-3-shot-at-california-high-school/?hpt=T2

I can think of more than a few gun Control laws that were broken and yet.........


Carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit.
Carrying of a Concealed weapon on School grounds.
Possession of a weapon by a minor.
Unlawful discharge of a weapon.
Assault.

Now we have to find out how did he get the gun? Did he buy it on the street?(Unlawful Sale) Was it stolen? Did he take it from his parents?(They can be charged)

Yep...Gun control sure does work!!!

[anthonyvop]

That is EXTREMELY reasonable and sensible gun law.

For you! I find it abhorrent and a violation of my rights as a human being.

[Daniel]

I can think of more than a few gun Control laws that were broken and yet.........


Carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit.
Carrying of a Concealed weapon on School grounds.
Possession of a weapon by a minor.
Unlawful discharge of a weapon.
Assault.

Now we have to find out how did he get the gun? Did he buy it on the street?(Unlawful Sale) Was it stolen? Did he take it from his parents?(They can be charged)

Yep...Gun control sure does work!!!

You guys don't understand, laws don't stop people shooting each other (accidently or intentionally), not having guns is what makes rates of shooting go down.....

[Daniel]

For you! I find it abhorrent and a violation of my rights as a human being.

So what about before guns were invented? Were we violated back then? :laugh:

[shazbot]

For you! I find it abhorrent and a violation of my rights as a human being.

Comment removed. Practice what you preach Shazbot!

[Roamy]

Because it's their right! Don't take away their freedom you coward sheep on your knees TIRE!!!!!


Now your cooking Daniel - Keep up the good work - You too can be free !!

[Tazio]

I can think of more than a few gun Control laws that were broken and yet.........


Carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit.
Carrying of a Concealed weapon on School grounds.
Possession of a weapon by a minor.
Unlawful discharge of a weapon.
Assault.

Now we have to find out how did he get the gun? Did he buy it on the street?(Unlawful Sale) Was it stolen? Did he take it from his parents?(They can be charged)

Yep...Gun control sure does work!!!
Tony this is South Central LA the birthplace of "The Crypts", and "The Bloods" and this is not what I would call an accident, and it is not the first shooting at that school. I have absolutely no doubt that there have been numerous knifings at that school as well. In response to schmekes initial inquiry about gun laws, not only are guns forbidden, if you read the link I provided it went on to say the students are scanned for metal. I'm not taking side here, because I am not a big proponent of guns, but this school is smack in the middle of a war zone. On page two of the article I posted there is a very poignant comment from a long time resident whose child attended Gardena High. I believe she has put some perspective on the whole systemic problem. I tend to hold similar views as this woman. Even though I don't own any firearms, and believe they are a huge problem in this country. If I lived in that neighborhood I would be sleeping with 9mm under my pillow and a 357 magnum in my closet, and a 34ounce "Louiville Slugger' next to the front door!!
Here is the comment from page 2 of the link I provided:


As a parent of a former student of Gardena High and a former student myself of another Los Anglels at Risk School, I have only concern for what I wrote, I don't think gun control is the answer. I am not a member of the NRA nor am I a gun owner. We need to regain control over the Schools and the kids in them. The* people and kids out there that have this sense of entitlement and think that they can do whatever it is that they want.


* I think this is a euphemistic reference to criminal gang types

[airshifter]

You guys don't understand, laws don't stop people shooting each other (accidently or intentionally), not having guns is what makes rates of shooting go down.....

I can only assume you are in contact with your local law makers to ensure that a full ban on motor vehicles takes place so the deaths will stop? :)

[Eki]

I can think of more than a few gun Control laws that were broken and yet.........


Carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit.
Carrying of a Concealed weapon on School grounds.
Possession of a weapon by a minor.
Unlawful discharge of a weapon.
Assault.

Now we have to find out how did he get the gun? Did he buy it on the street?(Unlawful Sale) Was it stolen? Did he take it from his parents?(They can be charged)

Yep...Gun control sure does work!!!
Maybe he got it from his dad, who had a license for it, or stole it from somebody else who had a license for it.

[Bob Riebe]

That is EXTREMELY reasonable and sensible gun law.To the criminal.
They know they can break in, do as they please to the owner, and then take his firearm with them if they so choose.
Oh and they can shoot him dead if they do not want to be identified.

[Bob Riebe]

You guys don't understand, laws don't stop people shooting each other (accidently or intentionally), not having guns is what makes rates of shooting go down.....
Not swimming stops drowning.
Staying off ladders stops deaths from falling off.
Having no electricity eliminates the possibility of electrocution, and not going outdoors prevents being hit by lightning.

Ban everything, we will live forever, except the criminals will still have guns, and use us as targets as they choose.

[Bob Riebe]

So what about before guns were invented? Were we violated back then? :laugh:
On the Pawn Shop show here, and gent came in and sold his cross bow, only it was a very small one for self defense, and a few, or more than a few people have been seriously wounde or killed with knives in the past year, if I remember correctly.

So your question was answered before you asked it.

[Bob Riebe]

Maybe he got it from his dad, who had a license for it, or stole it from somebody else who had a license for it.
Or maybe he is an illegal alien and got it from a gang member.

[glauistean]

Not swimming stops drowning.
Staying off ladders stops deaths from falling off.
Having no electricity eliminates the possibility of electrocution, and not going outdoors prevents being hit by lightning.

Ban everything, we will live forever, except the criminals will still have guns, and use us as targets as they choose.

You know you really come up with the most idiotic posts I have read. What is the correlation between swimming and gun control. It is neanderthal comments from people such as you that make the US the most violent in the industralized world. Are you proud of that , Riebe?

[Bob Riebe]

I suppose not being allowed to have an MG-42 in your house is like being denied a toothbrush and running water.
If you got the money, you can have an fully functional MG-42 in your house.

[Bob Riebe]

You know you really come up with the most idiotic posts I have read. What is the correlation between swimming and gun control. It is neanderthal comments from people such as you that make the US the most violent in the industralized world. Are you proud of that , Riebe?
Damn it is the middle of winter and I swear I hear a mosquito buzzing.

[Daniel]

Not swimming stops drowning.
Staying off ladders stops deaths from falling off.
Having no electricity eliminates the possibility of electrocution, and not going outdoors prevents being hit by lightning.

Ban everything, we will live forever, except the criminals will still have guns, and use us as targets as they choose.

Ladders and swimming serve very useful purposes other than very occasionally killing people.

[ArrowsFA1]

As I said, if it bothers them do not take the job, or get a different job.
So if a politician isn't too keen on feeling threatened by the thought of there being other Jared Loughners out there they should just quit?

That kind of attitude rather reflects the "Second Amendment remedy" (link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/arizona-and-second-amendm_b_806255.html)) that Sharron Angle was talking about when it comes to ways of opposing policies you may not agree with doesn't it? Talking about armed insurrection to cure the perceived problems with Congress' is one way to persuade unlike-minded politicians to "not take the job or get a different job". Once that happens the only people likely to take the job are more like-minded people, and hey presto you've got yourself a political coup.

[Eki]

If you got the money, you can have an fully functional MG-42 in your house.
That's not fair. Why should only people with money be able to have fully functional MG-42s, if it's such an essential household item?

[markabilly]

Further...

The sale of either automatic or semi-automatic firearms is not permitted.
Single-shot or bolt action rifles are permitted, but a user license is required as well as a registration permit for the rifle. I think the purchase of ammo can only be done by a license holder. I believe also there is a restriction on the magazine capacity.
Concealed weapons are obviously not permitted. Firearms must be stored unloaded in either a lockable cabinet, with the ammo separate, or be equipped with a lockable trigger guard. Similarily, when transported, it must be unloaded in a lockable case, with ammo separate.

That's about the extent of my knowledge. I'm sure there are many details and exceptions that I can't be bothered to look up :mark: .
Crap law pure ans simple.
Bottom Line this is not the UK, THANK GOD FOR THAT!!!

And this is NOT Canada, THANK GOD FOR THAT

and if there is anything wrong here, it is that the gun laws in the USA are way too restrictive while the criminal laws are a joke and the enforcement are even a bigger joke :rolleyes:

Funny how those who want to restrict guns are the same crybabies who call people murderers for standing and protecting themselves, and then think the criminal scum should be rehabbed and feel all so sorry about them

Go live or just stay in the UK, where the percentages of people who are scared to walk the streets at night are far higher, where the chances of being mugged in London are far higher than in new york city, and where if you attempt the defend your home after repeated break ins, you will be branded a murderer

Just remeber that the only reason people are not speaking either german or Russian throughout the whole of Europe is the USA, not the UK.... :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

So if a politician isn't too keen on feeling threatened by the thought of there being other Jared Loughners out there they should just quit?

That kind of attitude rather reflects the "Second Amendment remedy" (link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/arizona-and-second-amendm_b_806255.html)) that Sharron Angle was talking about when it comes to ways of opposing policies you may not agree with doesn't it? Talking about armed insurrection to cure the perceived problems with Congress' is one way to persuade unlike-minded politicians to "not take the job or get a different job". Once that happens the only people likely to take the job are more like-minded people, and hey presto you've got yourself a political coup.
So be it. They can arm themselves or not. They can take the job or not. Or they can run off to England, walk the streets.......Whatever

[markabilly]

Shazbot, Canada is like the US in that guns are part of the frontier culture. Like Australia, the country was and still is in many places an untamed wilderness with potential threats, although mainly from rampaging bears. People in Canada still live off the land, and the tradition of hunting, despite the best efforts of the social "elites" is alive and well. Many people own guns in Canada, but unlike the US, our guns are almost always hunting rifles or shotguns. The ownership of handguns is a lot less in Canada, since to own a handgun isn't illegal, but you pretty much have to jump through hoops and justify a need for one AND/OR only use it for target shooting and transport and store it with a lot of restrictions. There is no right to carry a hand gun in Canada.

So this means......we still have street crime. Criminals on the streets still shoot at each other and occasionally the police. Most of the gun crime in Canada is carried out with illegal guns. Yet the politicians are obsessed with registering long guns. THey have done this at great expense, and to date, I am still trying to find one story in the press where having a long gun registry has been of some use.

The fact is, in a society where there is respect for the rule of law, gun laws are not required, and in a society where the respect for the rule of law isn't being respected, well no gun law will stop carnage.

Looking at the UK, all those guys like Moat, and the guy who shot up the school in Dunblane years ago, got their guns illegally, and used them in a criminal and insane act. To ban guns doesn't stop these tragedies. What is more, this naive notion that a free society is free from attack from nut jobs is a sad one. Free societies will have the odd incident that is senseless and a tragedy. The USSR had a great murder rate I am sure if you overlooked the regime's enforcing the law with an iron fist. Would have wanted to live there? God no....

duh, you think that would be obvious, but no, we got mumble on about this subject, on and on.......and cry our eyes out iver some scum getting what he asked for, and about how he might have been rehabbed


Unfortunately being violent and wanting to dominant others by any means they can get away with, is the essence of human naturre, love it or not. Been that way since the dawn of man, and will remain so, until mankind finally manages to destroy himself from the face of the planet. Hell even all the science fiction movies are all about war and domination......

the fact that many of you are safe now, is only due to what backbone this country had possessed in the past, and hopefull those days will soon be over, as I have grown tired of good americans dying to keep whiney ingrates safe in their bed. Bring them home, and let the dogs of war devour the ingrates or let them fight for their own rights.

[ArrowsFA1]

So be it. They can arm themselves or not. They can take the job or not. Or they can run off to England, walk the streets.......Whatever
You're not concerned that politicians may walk away from politics because of a possible armed threat? Are you not concerned that democracy is threatened should that happen? And if they don't walk away and arm themselves instead for protection against a tiny minority among their constituents aren't you concerned about what effect that has on democracy?

Guns are not the answer where politics are concerned unless you want the US to become a military dictatorship or one party state, and I thought the US stood full-square against such societies.

[Rollo]

Unfortunately being violent and wanting to dominant others by any means they can get away with, is the essence of human naturre, love it or not. Been that way since the dawn of man, and will remain so, until mankind finally manages to destroy himself from the face of the planet. Hell even all the science fiction movies are all about war and domination...

So your solution is to defend against violence through violent means.

Laws themselves exist for three fundamental reasons: the regulation, protection and the standards of society. This is true for everything from road rules, building regulations, taxation, corporations legislation, town planning, crime, even things like distances, voltages, etc etc etc.

Essentially your argument is one which supposes that people are incapable of following or living within the law, so therefore remove it.


aren't you concerned about what effect that has on democracy?

No apparantly. Possession and defence of self IS law in his world. Democracy be damned.

[schmenke]

I can only assume you are in contact with your local law makers to ensure that a full ban on motor vehicles takes place so the deaths will stop? :)

Sigh...

As has been previously mentioned, a motor vehicle is registered and the user licensed because it is operated in public and has the potential to do harm to others. The registration and licensing is required to acknowledge both liability and responsibility of use.

A gun carried in public similarly has the potential to do harm to others yet requires no registration or licensing.

That is logic that I fail to understand.

[anthonyvop]

Sigh...

As has been previously mentioned, a motor vehicle is registered and the user licensed because it is operated in public and has the potential to do harm to others. The registration and licensing is required to acknowledge both liability and responsibility of use.


That is logic that I fail to understand.

Not true.

A car only needs to be registered and a driver has to have a license to operate on a government owned road. You can legally drive a car on private property without any need for government sanctioning.

So your logic allows for the unregulated possession of firearms on private property.

[chuck34]

Sigh...

As has been previously mentioned, a motor vehicle is registered and the user licensed because it is operated in public and has the potential to do harm to others. The registration and licensing is required to acknowledge both liability and responsibility of use.

A gun carried in public similarly has the potential to do harm to others yet requires no registration or licensing.

That is logic that I fail to understand.

In most places if you are going to carry your gun around with you, you need to have a license, and pass a background check. That is if you want to do it legally. Just as with a car. But then again no one is driving around without a license, right?

[Bob Riebe]

That's not fair. Why should only people with money be able to have fully functional MG-42s, if it's such an essential household item?Many firearms owners feel the same way but Reagan screwed it up.

[Bob Riebe]

You're not concerned that politicians may walk away from politics because of a possible armed threat? Are you not concerned that democracy is threatened should that happen? And if they don't walk away and arm themselves instead for protection against a tiny minority among their constituents aren't you concerned about what effect that has on democracy?

Guns are not the answer where politics are concerned unless you want the US to become a military dictatorship or one party state, and I thought the US stood full-square against such societies.As marka said, let them walk. Such an attitude shows their concern is for themselves and only for themselves.
If the Chicken-Little scenario you are proclaiming existed, we would be burying a few politicians every year, (not that with the garbage that makes up the majority of elected officials that would be so bad) such a paranoid reality does not exist.

[Bob Riebe]

So your solution is to defend against violence through violent means.

Laws themselves exist for three fundamental reasons: the regulation, protection and the standards of society. This is true for everything from road rules, building regulations, taxation, corporations legislation, town planning, crime, even things like distances, voltages, etc etc etc.

Essentially your argument is one which supposes that people are incapable of following or living within the law, so therefore remove it. The U.S. has laws that allow self-defense as part of your "rule of law" catch-phrase, so your rhetoric again fails at face value.


No apparently. Possession and defense of self IS law in his world. Democracy be damned.
Democracy is the only thing that allows the above two items.
Your statement makes no sense.

[Bob Riebe]

Sigh...

As has been previously mentioned, a motor vehicle is registered and the user licensed because it is operated in public and has the potential to do harm to others. The registration and licensing is required to acknowledge both liability and responsibility of use.

A gun carried in public similarly has the potential to do harm to others yet requires no registration or licensing.

That is logic that I fail to understand.There is also no mention in the Constitution of the right to own an automobile.

[BDunnell]

markabilly, do you have the slightest clue that your comments increasingly feed belief in the stereotype of the heartland American, amongst other things an individual whose linguistic facilities are limited, who has not the tiniest idea about life in any nation outside the USA, and whose own inferiority complexes and sense of insecurity lead them to make meaningless, belligerent proclamations of superiority? That you and others play up to these notions is, for those of us with a more balanced view of people from your fine nation (and I genuinely mean that), very sad indeed.

[shazbot]

markabilly, do you have the slightest clue that your comments increasingly feed belief in the stereotype of the heartland American, amongst other things an individual whose linguistic facilities are limited, who has not the tiniest idea about life in any nation outside the USA, and whose own inferiority complexes and sense of insecurity lead them to make meaningless, belligerent proclamations of superiority? That you and others play up to these notions is, for those of us with a more balanced view of people from your fine nation (and I genuinely mean that), very sad indeed.

When I read hillbilly's posts I cringe with embarassment as would the majorty of US citizens. As much as it pains me to say, we really should ignore him in this debate.

[Rollo]

Democracy is the only thing that allows the above two items.
Your statement makes no sense.

I'm pretty sure that even a completely totalitarian autocracy would have laws with regards road rules, building regulations, taxation, corporations legislation, town planning, crime, even things like distances, voltages, etc etc etc.

Democracy is one of many systems of government; and therefore most definately "not the only thing that allows the above two items" (and by the way there are three fundamental reasons why Law exists, not two).

My statement makes no sense to you because you clearly didn't read it.

[Bob Riebe]

I suppose when you have a gun other peoples automobiles are more accessible anyway. Maybe thats why it was covered in the original constitution?It makes the chance of an armed criminal taking one's car whilst one is sitting in it not possible?
But of course!-- Do you have any Grey Poupon?

[Bob Riebe]

I'm pretty sure that even a completely totalitarian autocracy would have laws with regards road rules, building regulations, taxation, corporations legislation, town planning, crime, even things like distances, voltages, etc etc etc.--- LOL, yes they would make ALL the LAWS

Democracy is one of many systems of government; and therefore most definately "not the only thing that allows the above two items" (and by the way there are three fundamental reasons why Law exists, not two).

My statement makes no sense to you because you clearly didn't read it.

No you are deliberately ignoring what I actually answered.
I gave TWO answers to your two statements and you are trying to skew that fact.

" POSSESSION AND DEFENSE OF SELF IS LAW IN THIS WORLD. DEMOCRACY BE DAMNED."-- This is what I answered and you tried to divert from. (Of course tell this to residents of the former Soviet Union and Mao's China)

Try again.

[schmenke]

...Just remeber that the only reason people are not speaking either german or Russian throughout the whole of Europe is the USA, not the UK.... :rolleyes:

Silly me, here I was thinking that the people in the whole of Europe are not speaking German because of the Russians... :mark:

[anthonyvop]

Oh well.....I guess the idea that less guns makes us safer argument is put to rest.


Crime & Criminal Justice
More Guns, Less Crime Again


Gun Ownership Rises to All-Time High,
Violent Crime Falls to 35-Year Low

Coinciding with a surge in gun purchases that began shortly before the 2008 elections, violent crime decreased six percent between 2008 and 2009, including an eight percent decrease in murder and a nine percent decrease in robbery.1 Since 1991, when violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43 percent to a 35-year low. Murder has fallen 49 percent to a 45-year low.2 At the same time, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about 90 million. Predictions by gun control supporters, that increasing the number of guns, particularly handguns and so-called “assault weapons,” would cause crime to increase, have been proven profoundly lacking in clairvoyance.4

More Guns: There are well over 250 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S., including nearly 100 million handguns and tens of millions of “assault weapons”—the types of firearms that gun control supporters have tried the hardest to get banned5—and the number of firearms typically rises about 4 million per year.6 Annual numbers of new AR-15s, the most popular semi-automatic rifle that gun control supporters call an “assault weapon,” are soaring. In 2008, there were more than 337,000 new AR-15s configured for home defense, competition, training, recreational target practice and hunting.7 NRA-supported Instant Check firearm transactions have increased over 10 percent annually since 2006.8

Less Gun Control: Over the last quarter-century, many federal, state and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. The federal “assault weapon” ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years the centerpiece of gun control supporters’ agenda, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 21 percent. Accordingly, some states have eliminated obsolete waiting periods and purchase permit requirements. There are now 40 Right-to-Carry states, an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987. All states have hunter protection laws, 48 have range protection laws, 48 prohibit local gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, 33 have “castle doctrine” laws protecting the right to use guns in self-defense, and Congress and 33 states prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.9 Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institutes of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun control reduces crime.10 The FBI doesn’t list gun control as one of the many factors that determine the type and level of crime from place to place.11

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

[BDunnell]

Oh well.....I guess the idea that less guns makes us safer argument is put to rest.



http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

Nice to see you basing your conclusion on an unbiased source. Clearly they didn't teach you much about research at the mysterious university you claim to have somehow been able to attend.

[Eki]

Silly me, here I was thinking that the people in the whole of Europe are not speaking German because of the Russians... :mark:
So it's the US to blame that we speak English instead of German. I kind of knew that. Before the WW2, Finns were studying German at school and after the WW2 we've been studying English. But could someone tell me what's the big difference?

[shazbot]

Bottom Line this is not the UK, THANK GOD FOR THAT!!!

And this is NOT Canada, THANK GOD FOR THAT

Please enlighten us as to exactly what is wrong with living in either the UK or Canada? I'm most interested. Out of interest how much time have you spent in either country?

[Eki]

So it's the US to blame that we speak English instead of German. I kind of knew that. Before the WW2, Finns were studying German at school and after the WW2 we've been studying English. But could someone tell me what's the big difference?
And it's thanks to the Germans that we're not speaking Russian.

[shazbot]

And it's thanks to the English that America speaks...er...English :)

[Eki]

And it's thanks to the English that America speaks...er...English :)
True. Might as well speak Spanish, French, Dutch, Swedish or some Native American language.

[Bob Riebe]

I must admit if I was looking for stats or opinions as to the positives and negatives of having guns in society, The National Rifle Association is probably the only opinion I would trust or look for. I love it... :laugh: :)
You are decrying a source simply because of you prejudiced opinion despite of the fact that the NRA's facts have won many court cases.
Now give a real reason the source is faulty.

[Bob Riebe]

So it's the US to blame that we speak English instead of German. I kind of knew that. Before the WW2, Finns were studying German at school and after the WW2 we've been studying English. But could someone tell me what's the big difference?
Say a word that means wonderful in English, now say it in German.

[Bob Riebe]

And it's thanks to the English that America speaks...er...English :)
NO, a good deal of the U.S. population (In Minn. my sig's Father attended German schools and spoke only German till eighth grade.) used to speak German as a primary language till after WWI.
A vote in congress is what stopped German from becoming an official U.S. language.

[shazbot]

NO, a good deal of the U.S. population (In Minn. my sig's Father attended German schools and spoke only German till eighth grade.) used to speak German as a primary language till after WWI.
A vote in congress is what stopped German from becoming an official U.S. language.


I LOVE the use capitals. How's this - It was a JOKE. Then again perhaps you have German ancestry and thus have no SeNse oF HUMOR. (that was A jOkE as welL) ;)

[motetarip]

Gun control law won't stop gun crime, but if a criminal is going to be faced with an armed victim they are sure as hell going to tool up for the occasion. I'm sure there's a hundred social reasons why gun crime in the US is so high compared to other armed nations like Canada, but it's far from as bad as many other places on the globe.

Guns don't kill people, rappers do. I saw it on a documentary on BBC2...

[Bob Riebe]

I LOVE the use capitals. How's this - It was a JOKE. Then again perhaps you have German ancestry and thus have no SeNse oF HUMOR. (that was A jOkE as welL) ;)
Wouldn't Germans Say- Yoke?

Ja Sure You Betcha.

[Bob Riebe]

Gun control law won't stop gun crime, but if a criminal is going to be faced with an armed victim they are sure as hell going to tool up for the occasion. I'm sure there's a hundred social reasons why gun crime in the US is so high compared to other armed nations like Canada, but it's far from as bad as many other places on the globe.

Guns don't kill people, rappers do. I saw it on a documentary on BBC2...
It would be nice if more rappers were killed, that would reduce the use of the word nigger a hundred fold.

[shazbot]

Wouldn't Germans Say- Yoke?

Ja Sure You Betcha.

Jå :up:

[markabilly]

Please enlighten us as to exactly what is wrong with living in either the UK or Canada? I'm most interested. Out of interest how much time have you spent in either country?

UK, a once great nation, now a fourth rate country, weakened internally by the loss of its very best in various wars, has fallen into that into the slothful way of living that happens to those who become overly dependant upon others for their ultimate survival, a product of their welfare state, where the weak are nourished, yet resentful of their impotency, they slander others out of spite and jealousy. Almost everyone here is whining does not live here, but are so worried about this country, but what they really want is to pull us down to their level

Time in the UK three weeks, Scotland was beautiful, London was dark and dirty, worse than New York City. Interesting to see that with the exception of the last 80 years or so, how brutual and nasty merry old england was to its own people for the last several thousand years. I could see that same overall brutuality returning after watching the skin heads parade around, much like the nazi brownshirts of germany.....

Canada was far more pleasant, but again the English welfare state of mind was overwhelming, despite some having the rugged individualistic attitude......sort of Easy Drifter vs schmenke, the tough guy who can take care of hisself v. the other kid of guy who needs to be protected

There are a few like that running around in the USA, who if they really want to be like zbrits, need to just pack up and go.

Spent far more time in Russia, and watched Putin with interst as he follows the classic path of the young great leader who slids into being a tyrant while his henchmen murder journalist and others who pose a threat with immunity, except where like Hitler and Stalin and all those before them, are bending the laws to toss them into prison.

[markabilly]

No you are deliberately ignoring what I actually answered.
I gave TWO answers to your two statements and you are trying to skew that fact.

.
Certain of the others around here do their best to do this "ignoring" constantly because they can not answer the questions with any logic, but must rely on a baiting troll type of personal attack

[markabilly]

More of the same "Certain of the others around here do their best to do this "ignoring" constantly because they can not answer the questions with any logic, but must rely on a baiting troll type of personal attack"--starting off with my favorite...


markabilly, do you have the slightest clue that your comments increasingly feed belief in the stereotype of the heartland American, amongst other things an individual whose linguistic facilities are limited, who has not the tiniest idea about life in any nation outside the USA, and whose own inferiority complexes and sense of insecurity lead them to make meaningless, belligerent proclamations of superiority? That you and others play up to these notions is, for those of us with a more balanced view of people from your fine nation (and I genuinely mean that), very sad indeed.






You mean when you had an assignment at University that required primary research, you didn't ask your entire family and just make up the rest to make the conclusions fit? :p :)


I must admit if I was looking for stats or opinions as to the positives and negatives of having guns in society, The National Rifle Association is probably the only opinion I would trust or look for. I love it... :laugh: :)


Yeah its certainly not something I can comprehend having in my daily life.

*Leaving house in the morning for work*: "Better make sure I have my wallet as I need to buy fuel on the way to work, car keys, mobile phone.....oh yes my 9 millimeter just in case I need to shoot someone in the face, laptop, sat nav, and finally a spare shirt.... I'm ready for the day...


So what about before guns were invented? Were we violated back then? :laugh:


markabilly, do you have the slightest clue that your comments increasingly feed belief in the stereotype of the heartland American, amongst other things an individual whose linguistic facilities are limited, who has not the tiniest idea about life in any nation outside the USA, and whose own inferiority complexes and sense of insecurity lead them to make meaningless, belligerent proclamations of superiority? That you and others play up to these notions is, for those of us with a more balanced view of people from your fine nation (and I genuinely mean that), very sad indeed.


We really appreciate you winning the war for us Markabilly, and barely 10 minutes passes where I don't look up to the skies and whisper,"God bless America" with a tear in my eye...lol

I'm sure when your countrymen recover from their facepalm's they'll reassure us that this stereotype thats building in our minds of gung ho, ego eccentrics believing they are gods gift to planet earth is just an isolated case.. lol

You get a thumbs up from me though, you've made my day.


Nice to see you basing your conclusion on an unbiased source. Clearly they didn't teach you much about research at the mysterious university you claim to have somehow been able to attend.

fact of the matter remains that the jews would have been far better off following these words of wisdom, http://www.jtf.org/israel/israel.why.jews.must.oppose.gun.control.htm

and honoring the examples of these, who learned too little too late, to do much good, http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1998-no-frames/resistance.htm


rather than the words of the posters quoted above....who not doubt are perfectly in tune with this massive chunky plus fatty, crying over his dole getting cut in half "Mr. SLOTH"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=370_1295398753

[anthonyvop]

Nice to see you basing your conclusion on an unbiased source. Clearly they didn't teach you much about research at the mysterious university you claim to have somehow been able to attend.

Nice of you to have not even bothered to read the article and check the references. Those references being the F.B.I. and The B.A.T.F.

The numbers in the article are facts that can be verified and are indisputable......The fact that you have a problem with the article being from the United States oldest and largest civil rights organization just amplifies the obvious bias you hold.

[janvanvurpa]

NO, a good deal of the U.S. population (In Minn. my sig's Father attended German schools and spoke only German till eighth grade.) used to speak German as a primary language till after WWI.
A vote in congress is what stopped German from becoming an official U.S. language.


Sorry, wrong, as usual.
http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.asp

http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/onevote.asp

[Bob Riebe]

Sorry, wrong, as usual.
http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.asp

http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/onevote.asp
The U.S. has no official language and no one said German was going to be one, but un-official official languages are those that official papers are printed in.

This is the official story as best can be told rather than the legend you refer to:

The German Vote

On January 13, 1795, Congress considered a proposal, not to give German any official status, but merely to print the federal laws in German as well as English. During the debate, a motion to adjourn failed by one vote. The final vote rejecting the translation of federal laws, which took place one month later, is not recorded.

The translation proposal itself originated as a petition to Congress on March 20, 1794, from a group of Germans living in Augusta, Virginia. A House committee responding to that petition recommended publishing sets of the federal statutes in English and distributing them to the states, together with the publication of three thousand sets of laws in German, "for the accommodation of such German citizens of the United States, as do not understand the English language." (American State Papers ser. 10, v. 1:114). According to the succinct report in the Aurora Gazette, "A great variety of plans were proposed, but none that seemed to meet the general sense of the House." (22 January, 1795, p. 3).

A vote to adjourn and sit again on the recommendation failed, 42 to 41, but there is no reason to believe from this close vote that more than token support existed for publishing the laws in German. The vote to adjourn seems to have been interpreted by the House as a vote of no confidence both in the committee's recommendation to translate the laws and in its recommendation on the distribution of the sets of laws once they were published in English. While there is no record of debate on the translation provision that day, if sentiment on the issue in Congress was anything like sentiment in Pennsylvania, translation was probably opposed by a substantial majority of the representatives.

On the other hand, the committee's plan for distributing the sets of laws did provoke some strong disagreement in the House. After objections to the latter were aired, a new committee was formed and asked to report again, and the House agreed to adjourn. It is from the close interim vote, not on an actual bill but on adjournment, that the so-called "German vote" legend has been built.

One month later, on February 16, 1795, the House once again considered the question of promulgating the laws, and among the issues, once again, was translating the federal statutes into German. This time some of the actual debate has been preserved. Rep. Thomas Hartley of Pennsylvania argued that "it was perhaps desirable that the Germans should learn English; but if it is our object to give present information, we should do it in the language understood. The Germans who are advanced in years cannot learn our language in a day. It would be generous in the Government to inform those persons. Many honest men, in the late disturbances [the Whiskey Rebellion], were led away by misrepresentation; ignorance of the laws laid them open to deception."

Rep. William V. Murray of Maryland, who opposed translating the laws into German, countered "that it had never been the custom in England to translate the laws into Welsh or Gaelic, and yet the great bulk of the Welsh, and some hundred thousands of people in Scotland, did not understand a word of English." (Annals of Congress 4:1228-29) The House finally approved publication of current and future federal statutes in English only. The bill was agreed to by the Senate and signed by President Washington the following month.

The January vote on adjournment is sometimes known as "the Muhlenberg Vote," after the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Pennsylvania's Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, a Federalist who spoke German with difficulty, so it is claimed, and who was at any rate a member of a prominent family of assimilated Germans who favored English as the language of education and religion (Dorpalen 1942, 178). Although the roll call vote does not survive, tradition has it that Muhlenberg stepped down to cast the deciding negative, thereby dooming German in America to minority-language status. Tradition notwithstanding, too much weight should not be given to the fact that the Speaker was not in the chair on this occasion. It was common for the Speaker to step down, and Muhlenburg did so on many other occasions during the Third Congress. Even a positive vote on the adjournment issue could not have led to approval of German translations of the laws, a concession which the Congress has repeatedly refused to make ever since.

Nonetheless, Muhlenberg was blamed for selling out German language interests by Franz LÔher, whose 1847 "History and Achievements of the Germans in America" presents a garbled though frequently cited account of what is supposed to have happened. LÔher places the crucial language vote not in the U.S. Congress, but in the Pennsylvania legislature, over which Muhlenberg had earlier presided. There is no evidence as to Muhlenberg's actual views on German publishing; no evidence that he cast a tie-breaking vote on the matter; and no contemporary indication that the German community was displeased with his stewardship over the Third Congress. However, Muhlenberg later did manage to irritate his German constituents by casting the deciding vote in favor of the Jay Treaty during the Fourth Congress, a move which drove his brother-in-law to stab him and which cost him the next election in 1796. This significant tie-breaker soon became confused with the earlier adjournment cliff-hanger, conveniently fleshing out the myth of the German vote (Feer 1952, 401).

[markabilly]

I'm out.

always

[Daniel]

At no point have you been insulted by myself. You've made the point that people who don't believe in guns or have a difference of opinion to yourself are idiots, cowards, and dumb. I think this proves your above post was written with mimimal thought. :)

Henners, it's Markabilly's intention just to talk rubbish until the point where you just give up. I have up days ago trying to reason with him.....

[Dave B]

Spent far more time in Russia, and watched Putin with interst as he follows the classic path of the young great leader who slids into being a tyrant while his henchmen murder journalist and others who pose a threat with immunity, except where like Hitler and Stalin and all those before them, are bending the laws to toss them into prison.

If we're going to talk about tyrannical world leaders "bending the laws to toss [people] in prison", best put a For Sale sign outside your glass house first. And, for the record, I include the UK in that: it's shameful how we got suckered into your illegal war.

[schmenke]

As difficult as it is to have a reasonable debate on the original subject, let's not take this thread off topic.

[ArrowsFA1]

Much is made of the fact that the US constitution, via the second amendment, guarantees the right of individuals to possess weapons but the US constitution was adopted in 1787 with the second amendment following in 1791.

The world was a very different place in 1791. It was a time of the French Revolution, Alaska had only just been discovered, Mozart died, the first steamboat was patented and communications speeded up with the introduction of semaphore.

[Dave B]

Much is made of the fact that the US constitution, via the second amendment, guarantees the right of individuals to possess weapons but the US constitution was adopted in 1787 with the second amendment following in 1791.

The world was a very different place in 1791. It was a time of the French Revolution, Alaska had only just been discovered, Mozart died, the first steamboat was patented and communications speeded up with the introduction of semaphore.


I'm afraid that's simply too logical an argument against people who still regard events from 70 years ago as indicative of "modern Germany".

The world has changed, but certain parts of the USA are stuck in the old Wild West mentality. I can't see that changing in our lifetimes, sadly, so probably best to let them get on with it and be thankful there's several thousand miles of ocean between us. This thread can rage on, but I can't be bothered being a part of it any more.

[chuck34]

Much is made of the fact that the US constitution, via the second amendment, guarantees the right of individuals to possess weapons but the US constitution was adopted in 1787 with the second amendment following in 1791.

The world was a very different place in 1791. It was a time of the French Revolution, Alaska had only just been discovered, Mozart died, the first steamboat was patented and communications speeded up with the introduction of semaphore.

So let's just get rid of the whole Constitution all together? Afterall it's just too out of date. That freedom of speach thing is an outdated concept, let's sensor the press and assembly. Due process, who needs it? Trial by jury, what an outdated concept. Cruel and unusual punishment? Have at it.

[schmenke]

So let's just get rid of the whole Constitution all together? ...

No need. The original Constition allowed for subsequent updates/changes, hence the inclusion of the Amendment process.

[chuck34]

No need. The original Constition allowed for subsequent updates/changes, hence the inclusion of the Amendment process.

Exactly. And as such has there been an Amendment passed that superceeds the 2nd Amendment? Perhaps I've missed it and you can point me in the direction where I may find it.

[chuck34]

Getting back to your point Arrows, are we really debating a subject of guns which is backed up by a piece of paper written 220 years ago??

That silly 1st Amendment was also written 220 years ago. I suppose that we should just throw that out as well? What other laws are you going to throw out "because they were written X years ago"?

How long should a law be on the books before it becomes "too old" and should just be ignored?

This concept is just silly to me. As schmenke points out, there are processes to amend the Constitution. If you don't think portions of it apply any longer, or "they're just too old", there is a process to change it. Or is the process layed out in the Constitution also not valid because "it's too old" too?

[Bob Riebe]

Much is made of the fact that the US constitution, via the second amendment, guarantees the right of individuals to possess weapons but the US constitution was adopted in 1787 with the second amendment following in 1791.

The world was a very different place in 1791. It was a time of the French Revolution, Alaska had only just been discovered, Mozart died, the first steamboat was patented and communications speeded up with the introduction of semaphore.
A nice little speech that says nothing because it is based on nothing.

Using your vacuous mode, I guess change stopped right around 100 yrs ago when a Mexican strong man and his followers crossed the border attacked and murdered citizens of a U.S. town.
Sounds like the modern day Mexican border, except back then the President sent an armed forced to attack and kill the murderers but the President today pretty much just ignores the problem as it might cost his party votes.

It is a shame we have become so pathetic that such trash can cross the border, and the only people being punished are Border Patrol Agents who shot a criminal fleeing across the border in the buttocks.

[Eki]

That silly 1st Amendment was also written 220 years ago. I suppose that we should just throw that out as well? What other laws are you going to throw out "because they were written X years ago"?
Those that aren't up to date and are therefore useless or even harmful in a modern society. For example, I'm glad that the laws allowing slavery and witch hunts were abolished.


How long should a law be on the books before it becomes "too old" and should just be ignored?
Depends on how long it takes them to become useless.
[/QUOTE]

[Bob Riebe]

Henners, it's Markabilly's intention just to talk rubbish until the point where you just give up. I have up days ago trying to reason with him.....
Markabilly is a vet who has been there and done that, whilst having to deal with two-faced cluster-**** brass and politicians.

His forward form of speaking may result from having to deal with too much of the illogic prattle that is sometimes put forth here in the past.

With the history some of Europe has, people there being critical of the U.S. should be aware of the fact people in glass houses throwing stones can have nasty results.

[schmenke]

It’s not a matter of certain articles or amendments being “too old”.
The authors had the foresight to recognise the need for flexibility in the Constitution, and thus the amendment process was introduced, to allow for the changing requirements of an evolving nation.

Sadly the 2nd Amendment will never change because one of the two most influential lobby groups, the NRA, will never allow a bill to be proposed to Congress.

[Bob Riebe]

That silly 1st Amendment was also written 220 years ago. I suppose that we should just throw that out as well? What other laws are you going to throw out "because they were written X years ago"?

How long should a law be on the books before it becomes "too old" and should just be ignored?


Don't you know man's basic nature has changed?
It no longer posses any of those nasty traits that were so common so long ago.
It is just like Star Trek where the evil seed is gone.

[chuck34]

Those that aren't up to date and are therefore useless or even harmful in a modern society. For example, I'm glad that the laws allowing slavery and witch hunts were abolished.

Slavery was abolished by the Amendment process. Has anyone even proposed that for repeal of the 2nd Amendment? It can be done, see 18th and 21st Amendment.


Depends on how long it takes them to become useless.


So as soon as you or "someone" decides a law is useless, then we can all just ignore said law?

[Bob Riebe]

It’s not a matter of certain articles or amendments being “too old”.
The authors had the foresight to recognise the need for flexibility in the Constitution, and thus the amendment process was introduced, to allow for the changing requirements of an evolving nation.
Congress has little to do with it, it has to be ratified by a majority of States and that will never happen.

The amendment process exists to eliminate any evils not seen by the original writer, sadly a supreme court that has enough people to ignore what the Constitution actually says have more power than designed.
That was one reason Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme Court with his cronies.

[Mark]

Amen.

[chuck34]

It’s not a matter of certain articles or amendments being “too old”.
The authors had the foresight to recognise the need for flexibility in the Constitution, and thus the amendment process was introduced, to allow for the changing requirements of an evolving nation.

I totally agree, the framers were quite brilliant. Brilliant enough to know that they didn't know everything. Brilliant enough to know that they would make mistakes. Brilliant enough to know that times would change. That's why the allowed their work to be amended. But this part of this discussion started because Arrows basically said that the 2nd Amendment was crap because it was written over 200 years ago. Implying that it didn't have any meaning anymore simply because of the time passed. Reasonable people can agree that this is not the way governments/laws work.


Sadly the 2nd Amendment will never change because one of the two most influential lobby groups, the NRA, will never allow a bill to be proposed to Congress.

So slavery didn't have an influential lobby group? Not that I think that the 2nd Amendment should be over-turned, but if enough people believe it should be, it can be. With or without the NRA. Giving up never gets you anywhere.

[Bob Riebe]

Not that I think that the 2nd Amendment should be over-turned, but if enough people believe it should be, it can be. With or without the NRA. Giving up never gets you anywhere.
Politician go after what ever personal, or professional topics they think will keep them in office and get them the sweetest office on Capital Hill.

Except for nut-jobs who proposed asinine things such as the 1,000ft distance, the paranoid magazine ban and similar such silly items, politicians, in this new gentler age are concerned about their nest egg first, second and third.

There are a few who until slimed by the climate try for a little while, to change things, but so far they are few and far between.

[schmenke]

I totally agree, the framers were quite brilliant. Brilliant enough to know that they didn't know everything. Brilliant enough to know that they would make mistakes. Brilliant enough to know that times would change. That's why the allowed their work to be amended. But this part of this discussion started because Arrows basically said that the 2nd Amendment was crap because it was written over 200 years ago. Implying that it didn't have any meaning anymore simply because of the time passed. Reasonable people can agree that this is not the way governments/laws work.



So slavery didn't have an influential lobby group? Not that I think that the 2nd Amendment should be over-turned, but if enough people believe it should be, it can be. With or without the NRA. Giving up never gets you anywhere.

Chuck, with all do respect, you are interpreting much of what is being said here too simplistically.
I do not think anyone here is implying that the 2nd Amendment is “crap” or that it not longer has meaning because of the passage of time.
Over time, nations evolve, social needs change, political relationships with other nations change, economies change etc. The laws which dictate the governance of the people need to be flexible to accommodate these changes.
It is this that the framers recognized and for which the amendment process was introduced. Not to “eliminate any evils not seen by the original writer” as Rob mentions.

[Bob Riebe]

Chuck, with all do respect, you are interpreting much of what is being said here too simplistically.
I do not think anyone here is implying that the 2nd Amendment is “crap” or that it not longer has meaning because of the passage of time.
Over time, nations evolve, social needs change, political relationships with other nations change, economies change etc. The laws which dictate the governance of the people need to be flexible to accommodate these changes.
It is this that the framers recognized and for which the amendment process was introduced. Not to “eliminate any evils not seen by the original writer” as Rob mentions.
You are simply wrong in your accommodate simplicity.
Nothing in the original document or any other paper written by the formers of the Constitution say any thing that even slightly resembles that foolish statement.

[schmenke]

Congress has little to do with it, it has to be ratified by a majority of States and that will never happen...

Sorry, Rob, I could be wrong. I was under the impression that a 2/3 majority vote is required by congress to pass a bill, which is required to propose an amendment to the Constitution. Regardless, such a bill will never reach that far due to the influence of the NRA. Heck, many members of both the legislate and the senate are NRA members :mark:

[Daniel]

So essential what the gun nuts of the forum are saying is that the founding fathers were a bunch of morons who thought that society wasn't going to change and they felt that the rules they proposed would be appropriate forever

[Bob Riebe]

Here is the latest from the Shot Show, which is a commercial firearms industry show, a similar show is held each year in Germany.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/kel-tec-ksg-pump-bull-pup-tactical-shotgun

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/the-taurus-raging-judge-28-gauge-revolver/

God blessed America.

[schmenke]

...
Nothing in the original document or any other paper written by the formers of the Constitution say any thing that even slightly resembles that foolish statement.

You’re right, not specifically. But could you please point out where it mentions the elimination of evils not seen by the original writer?

[Bob Riebe]

Sorry, Rob, I could be wrong. I was under the impression that a 2/3 majority vote is required by congress to pass a bill, which is required to propose an amendment to the Constitution. Regardless, such a bill will never reach that far due to the influence of the NRA. Heck, many members of both the legislate and the senate are NRA members :mark:
You are correct but unless the States ratify the Amendment it is DOA.

[chuck34]

Chuck, with all do respect, you are interpreting much of what is being said here too simplistically.
I do not think anyone here is implying that the 2nd Amendment is “crap” or that it not longer has meaning because of the passage of time.
Over time, nations evolve, social needs change, political relationships with other nations change, economies change etc. The laws which dictate the governance of the people need to be flexible to accommodate these changes.
It is this that the framers recognized and for which the amendment process was introduced. Not to “eliminate any evils not seen by the original writer” as Rob mentions.


Much is made of the fact that the US constitution, via the second amendment, guarantees the right of individuals to possess weapons but the US constitution was adopted in 1787 with the second amendment following in 1791.

The world was a very different place in 1791. It was a time of the French Revolution, Alaska had only just been discovered, Mozart died, the first steamboat was patented and communications speeded up with the introduction of semaphore.

How do you interpret what he said? To my mind it sure sounds like he's saying something to the effect of "the law is too old to be of any use anymore". If that is not the case then what does it mean?

You are right about why the amendment process is there. It is to accommodate changes in social needs, political relationships, etc. But Bob is also right, at least in part, that it was also there to eliminate evils". As many of the Founders knew that slavery would have to be delt with at some point, but they could not do it at that point in time because most likely the Union would have been split at a time when they could ill afford that potential outcome.

[chuck34]

So essential what the gun nuts of the forum are saying is that the founding fathers were a bunch of morons who thought that society wasn't going to change and they felt that the rules they proposed would be appropriate forever

Who is saying that? All I'm saying is that you can't just willy-nilly modify/ignore laws that are on the books because someone thinks "times have changed".

And I think everyone agrees that the Founders were smart enough to place an amendment process into the document they wrote. I have yet to see ANYONE say that the Constitution can not be changed.

[Bob Riebe]

So essential what the gun nuts of the forum are saying is that the founding fathers were a bunch of morons who thought that society wasn't going to change and they felt that the rules they proposed would be appropriate forever
No- rather they were not a bunch Pie-in-sky twits who did not learn from past.

You are trying to make the Founding Fathers fit your rhetoric without regard to facts- or reality of the time.
Of course that is the same narcissistic poison, liberals in Wash. continually try to use, on the the country, to make the country into what they want and to hell with the voting population.
It is pathetic that liberals here, and probably anywhere, refuse to accept the fact that there are no truths, there is only the truth.

Markabilly was criticized earlier for insulting remarks, your statement here makes him no worse than those criticizing him.

[schmenke]

How do you interpret what he said? ...


Much is made of the fact that the US constitution, via the second amendment, guarantees the right of individuals to possess weapons but the US constitution was adopted in 1787 with the second amendment following in 1791.
The world was a very different place in 1791. It was a time of the French Revolution, Alaska had only just been discovered, Mozart died, the first steamboat was patented and communications speeded up with the introduction of semaphore.

:mark:

[markabilly]

I'm out.


There was also a by law in some parts of the UK that said anyone with the name 'Henry' was eligiable for a Castle free of charge from the Crown. I've had increased difficulty getting that one through the planning office I must admit. There's also a village near Hereford where a law was recently abolished that said an Englishman could kill a Welshman if he found him on his property. Whether that would have stood up in a modern court of law is doubtful.

Getting back to your point Arrows, are we really debating a subject of guns which is backed up by a piece of paper written 220 years ago?? Reminds me very much of a conversation I had with a Christian group who tried to convert me on my way home from a night out in Cardiff a few years ago. Although I was very drunk, I did ask a question where this young lady scratched her head, smiled, and simply gave me a leaflet.

I would imagine America was a safer place in 1791 too. Gentlemen walking around in pantaloons, slapping their gloves against their palms, doffing their caps at elegant ladies, and duelling for their affection with semi automatic weapons. If Back to the Future was real eh? :)

you are still out......

[markabilly]

Much is made of the fact that the US constitution, via the second amendment, guarantees the right of individuals to possess weapons but the US constitution was adopted in 1787 with the second amendment following in 1791.

The world was a very different place in 1791. It was a time of the French Revolution, Alaska had only just been discovered, Mozart died, the first steamboat was patented and communications speeded up with the introduction of semaphore.


WOW, dude, you are so right!!!!

Unlike life in the 1700's where honor, england ruled the ocean blue, you are right, modern times are so much better and we have all made so much progress, and just think of our history in the last 100 hundred years and how it dwarfs everything back then, why we got
1. Airplanes that fly,
2. Choo-choo trains that rail down the road
3. Far better medicine that can cure that which was incurable
4. The ability to alter the genectic foundations of life and create new life forms
4. Nuclear weapons that can take out the whole world........

and the whole world has learned to love each and everyone else... :love: ..oh, how sweet....



Indeed, the history of the last one hundred years...to mention just a few of those events showing how the nature of man has changed for the good, thereby eliminating any need to think one might wish they had a weapon to fight back as they are ground to pieces under some tank tracks:

1. World War 1, machine guns, mustard gas and flamethrowers, 8 million dead soldiers, and other 1,000,000 dead german civilains from starvation brought on by the british naval blaockade, the russian revolution, and all sorts of joyful events from 1910 to 1918, followed by
2. The great depression, where once again there was mass starvation, (as many as 5 million starved in the Ukraine, helped along by Stalin) from 1929....
3. WW2---how many total dead from the actual war, not counting the murders in concentration camps....22 million soldier deaths and all the rest adding up to 60 or 80 million
4. Hitler murdering 6 million plus in concentration camps by bullets, gas, and starvation until dead in 1945
5. Stalin murdering 20 million plus by bullets (those do not count include the millions killed by deliberate policies resulting in starvation such as the 3 to 5 million in Ukraine) or dying by disease in prision and in general through witholding of medical care, practices that went past his death in 1953
6. Mao murdering as many as 50 million through his programs of mass starvation and executions that went on after his death, up until 1980 or so
7. The cold war, where the USA kept western europe out of the hands of the russians until the berlin wall crashed in 1989, as a result of the threat of nuclear weapon usuage.....including the fact that if it were something of a conventional war where ICBM were not used, the storage of tactical nukes in the form of land mines that would explode as the red army approached, creating a whole new definition of scorched earth policy and a real barricade to the movement of troops into West Germany, something to make the german soil glow in the dark for "a thousand years"
8. The berlin wall and other border outposts where the guards shot to kill anyone trying to escape to West Germany, killings that did not stop until the time approaching the crash of the wall itself in the late 80's , geewhiz, just like the North Koreans did just the other day.
9.Nuke weapons, the threat of which may have stopped another WW3, but left the entire world sitting on a powderkeg, where in 30 minutes or less, life as we know it, or what was left, would be glowing in the dark
10. Thos nuke weapons are still around today, most of them, and it would only require a few days of work to get them ready to set off again.....
11. Funtimes in vietnam, oh, yeah, real jungle warfare, where the USA sometimes took prisoners but the gooks never did, and the sweet smell of gasoline and burning human flesh, as the napalm bombs would hit---something you just got to smell if you really want to appreciate the modern world.... :s mokin:
12. Iraq in 1990
13. "911" terrorists crashing airplanes full of women, children and babies into buildings some ten years ago
14. Iraq again and Afganistan
15. North Korea using its best efforts to build some nukes and missiles to reach the West Coast of the USA, to say nothing of japan, but we all know those crazies probably will not do it, just like they would not shoot women and children trying to escape from that misery....

16.Iran, where stoning or hanging someone who a judge decides that by looking at them, he can take judicial notice that he might, maybe actually be gay, ....stoning women for being a little loose on the sexual side....and all the time, doing their best to build nukes....where the inside word is that Iran is not planning to actually use it to blow up a city, but instead would like to pop two of those little darlings, one above the center of the USA and the other above the center of Europe (and that would get the GB as well) and through the electromagnetic pulse of energy, destroying all electronic gear in every form within the massive radius.....thereby sending both areas back to the time of using candles to see at night, no more internet, no radios, no computers, no more cars that drive, no electricity, mass starvation, people dying because modern medical iracles likelife support and x-ray machines no longer function.....

and worse of all no more formula one :eek:

.....and no civilization....well big deal about that

yes, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its failures... :D .

Good point Arrows, real good thinking you got there :rolleyes:

[Eki]

Slavery was abolished by the Amendment process. Has anyone even proposed that for repeal of the 2nd Amendment? It can be done, see 18th and 21st Amendment.



So as soon as you or "someone" decides a law is useless, then we can all just ignore said law?
Yes, if enough people agree and put it on paper. In Finland it takes 2/3 majority of the Parliament to change the constitution, while 1/2 majority is enough to change regular laws.

And the constitution is updated regularly. I'm glad that the current one is from 2000 and not still from 1919:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Finland

[Roamy]

With all the idiots we have in government I am beginning to believe that I should review "The Benefits of Dictatorship"

[ArrowsFA1]

A nice little speech that says nothing because it is based on nothing.
It's not a "little speech" Bob, it's simply a point I felt worth making to add to the discussion. The point has been made time and time again that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution. When that document was written has some relevance.

So let's just get rid of the whole Constitution all together? Afterall it's just too out of date.
Not what I'm saying at all chuck. There's no need to throw that baby out with the bath water! Why was the right to bear arms written into the constitution? Was it to allow citizens to defend themselves, or was it more specifically so they could defend themselves against their politicians who might just try to grab too much power?
I think it's important to know why the amendment was included and whether that reason is still relevant today, and also whether the amendment itself has been used for unintended purposes.

But this part of this discussion started because Arrows basically said that the 2nd Amendment was crap because it was written over 200 years ago. Implying that it didn't have any meaning anymore simply because of the time passed. Reasonable people can agree that this is not the way governments/laws work.
No chuck, I didn't intend to imply that the 2nd amendment was "crap", or that "it didn't have any meaning anymore".

[airshifter]

Your intent was not lost on all of us Arrows. I think it was a very valid point, but in reality nobody has the answer to what the actual detailed intentions were. As judged by the Supreme Court the right to keep and bear arms is still valid.


But just for discussion, place all Constitutional rights aside. I still can't find a valid reason why guns should be made illegal in the US. The vast majority of gun crimes takes place at the hands of those not legal gun owners already. There is simply not enough enforcement of laws existing. The US has had a declining homicide rate for 30 years or more, yet more and more states are allowing concealed carry and such. If guns are the root of such evils, why are all the violent crime rates dropping?

Legal owners with guns reduce violent crime rates by being able to protect themselves and/or others. Why would society want to enact laws when guns by legal owners are much more likely to prevent crime than they are to commit crime.

[chuck34]

Not what I'm saying at all chuck. There's no need to throw that baby out with the bath water! Why was the right to bear arms written into the constitution? Was it to allow citizens to defend themselves, or was it more specifically so they could defend themselves against their politicians who might just try to grab too much power? I think it's important to know why the amendment was included and whether that reason is still relevant today, and also whether the amendment itself has been used for unintended purposes.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. But to me it sure seemed like you were saying "it's old, so it has no meaning". And in a round about way, it still sort of sounds like you are saying that, sort of. At least you are saying that we should re-evalutate it. And I'm fine with that.

The reason why the 2nd Amendment is there isn't some "grand mystery of life". There are plenty of sources out there, letters, speaches, pamphlets, etc, all written at the time by the people writing the 2nd Amendment, even some opposing views. Go read up if you are really interested. You will see that it's basically there for BOTH the reasons you pointed out; personal protection and protection from the government. Most people, at the time, would have seen those things as one-in-the-same. Sure there were some that disagreed, as always, but in the end it was the ratified.

What "unintended purposes" are you speaking of? Remember "Those who would trade freedom for safety, deserve neither"

[ArrowsFA1]

What "unintended purposes" are you speaking of?
Well, I can understand the authors of the constitution granting citizens the right to bear arms back in 1791. The US had recently gained independence and were creating a new nation so not exactly the most stable of circumstances!

Today, that same justification does not appear to apply. The US is a well established democracy. However, the right to bear arms appears to have become a very influential political movement in its own right. I'm not sure the founding fathers could have foreseen, nor intend, that to be the case. Rather I suspect that the 2nd amendment may have been seen as necessary in the short term to ensure the survival of a new nation along the lines laid out by the constitution.

The problem, as we can see today, is once that particular can of worms was opened taking the right back, or severely restricting that right, is nigh on impossible.

[markabilly]

It's not a "little speech" Bob, it's simply a point I felt worth making to add to the discussion. The point has been made time and time again that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution. When that document was written has some relevance.

Not what I'm saying at all chuck. There's no need to throw that baby out with the bath water! Why was the right to bear arms written into the constitution? Was it to allow citizens to defend themselves, or was it more specifically so they could defend themselves against their politicians who might just try to grab too much power?
I think it's important to know why the amendment was included and whether that reason is still relevant today, and also whether the amendment itself has been used for unintended purposes.

No chuck, I didn't intend to imply that the 2nd amendment was "crap", or that "it didn't have any meaning anymore".

Obviously you have no idea about why it was put there, and no idea about its currrent relevance: "Was it to allow citizens to defend themselves, or was it more specifically so they could defend themselves against their politicians who might just try to grab too much power?"

It was put there for both reasons, as i documented with direct quotes from the man who wrote it along with all the reasons written for its passage, of course which you have chosen to ignore.

meanwhile you ignore that the last person to be shot while trying to cross the border was Chris Gueffroy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Gueffroy) on February 6, 1989 from East Germany to West Germany, about 21 years ago, or people shot in no man's land who were left to bleed to death...

And that it took the 'arm's race" to finally break the economic backbone of the soviet union, as well as Ronald Regean, a cowboy if ever, to utter the words that would lead to its fall...Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Meanwhile, there is a raging drug war, fueled by money from the USa from purchase of drugs, across an open border in mexcico and other parts of middle and south america....where duffel bags of severed heads are tossed around like candy.....that is raging inside this country as well, crime in the streets from a failure to enforce laws, but a crime rate that is dropping, as more and more criminal are either intimadated by the growing threat that they might be shot dead by their intended victim


If anything, its relevance today is even stronger, unless you be one of those "peace in our time" fearful types....because:
"Those who would trade freedom for safety, deserve neither", and will not have freedom or safety for long anyway...

When writing the second amendment, it would have been difficult to forecast a century of violence as the last one hundred years where 250 plus millions, a quarter of a billion people, would die at the hands of tranny or as a result of it.....but do the math.

PS- Really enjoyed the opportunity to watch the neo-nazi skinhead parade or more like disorganized public outing in london, as it gave me an opportunity to experience what it must have been like to see the nazi brownshirts parading around in germany in the 1930's...scary stuff, real scary stuff...... :up:

[markabilly]

[quote="ArrowsFA1"]Well, I can understand the authors of the constitution granting citizens the right to bear arms back in 1791. The US had recently gained independence and were creating a new nation so not exactly the most stable of circumstances!

Today, that same justification does not appear to apply. The US is a well established democracy. However, the right to bear arms appears to have become a very influential political movement in its own right. I'm not sure the founding fathers could have foreseen, nor intend, that to be the case. Rather I suspect that the 2nd amendment may have been seen as necessary in the short term to ensure the survival of a new nation along the lines laid out by the constitution.

[quote]

absoluttely not. It was because that was the only way to ensure democracy on a long term, forever basis...and that is what they said, when they wrote it and passed it

and they really did not grant the right; it merely recognized that right as it was already being used, as in tossing england out of the USA being a good example in the 1770's

[schmenke]

WOW, dude, you are so right!!!!

Unlike life in the 1700's where honor, england ruled the ocean blue, you are right, modern times are so much better and we have all made so much progress, and just think of our history in the last 100 hundred years and how it dwarfs everything back then, why we got
1. Airplanes that fly,
2. Choo-choo trains that rail down the road
3. Far better medicine that can cure that which was incurable
4. The ability to alter the genectic foundations of life and create new life forms
4. Nuclear weapons that can take out the whole world........

and the whole world has learned to love each and everyone else... :love: ..oh, how sweet....



Indeed, the history of the last one hundred years...to mention just a few of those events showing how the nature of man has changed for the good, thereby eliminating any need to think one might wish they had a weapon to fight back as they are ground to pieces under some tank tracks:

1. World War 1, machine guns, mustard gas and flamethrowers, 8 million dead soldiers, and other 1,000,000 dead german civilains from starvation brought on by the british naval blaockade, the russian revolution, and all sorts of joyful events from 1910 to 1918, followed by
2. The great depression, where once again there was mass starvation, (as many as 5 million starved in the Ukraine, helped along by Stalin) from 1929....
3. WW2---how many total dead from the actual war, not counting the murders in concentration camps....22 million soldier deaths and all the rest adding up to 60 or 80 million
4. Hitler murdering 6 million plus in concentration camps by bullets, gas, and starvation until dead in 1945
5. Stalin murdering 20 million plus by bullets (those do not count include the millions killed by deliberate policies resulting in starvation such as the 3 to 5 million in Ukraine) or dying by disease in prision and in general through witholding of medical care, practices that went past his death in 1953
6. Mao murdering as many as 50 million through his programs of mass starvation and executions that went on after his death, up until 1980 or so
7. The cold war, where the USA kept western europe out of the hands of the russians until the berlin wall crashed in 1989, as a result of the threat of nuclear weapon usuage.....including the fact that if it were something of a conventional war where ICBM were not used, the storage of tactical nukes in the form of land mines that would explode as the red army approached, creating a whole new definition of scorched earth policy and a real barricade to the movement of troops into West Germany, something to make the german soil glow in the dark for "a thousand years"
8. The berlin wall and other border outposts where the guards shot to kill anyone trying to escape to West Germany, killings that did not stop until the time approaching the crash of the wall itself in the late 80's , geewhiz, just like the North Koreans did just the other day.
9.Nuke weapons, the threat of which may have stopped another WW3, but left the entire world sitting on a powderkeg, where in 30 minutes or less, life as we know it, or what was left, would be glowing in the dark
10. Thos nuke weapons are still around today, most of them, and it would only require a few days of work to get them ready to set off again.....
11. Funtimes in vietnam, oh, yeah, real jungle warfare, where the USA sometimes took prisoners but the gooks never did, and the sweet smell of gasoline and burning human flesh, as the napalm bombs would hit---something you just got to smell if you really want to appreciate the modern world.... :s mokin:
12. Iraq in 1990
13. "911" terrorists crashing airplanes full of women, children and babies into buildings some ten years ago
14. Iraq again and Afganistan
15. North Korea using its best efforts to build some nukes and missiles to reach the West Coast of the USA, to say nothing of japan, but we all know those crazies probably will not do it, just like they would not shoot women and children trying to escape from that misery....

16.Iran, where stoning or hanging someone who a judge decides that by looking at them, he can take judicial notice that he might, maybe actually be gay, ....stoning women for being a little loose on the sexual side....and all the time, doing their best to build nukes....where the inside word is that Iran is not planning to actually use it to blow up a city, but instead would like to pop two of those little darlings, one above the center of the USA and the other above the center of Europe (and that would get the GB as well) and through the electromagnetic pulse of energy, destroying all electronic gear in every form within the massive radius.....thereby sending both areas back to the time of using candles to see at night, no more internet, no radios, no computers, no more cars that drive, no electricity, mass starvation, people dying because modern medical iracles likelife support and x-ray machines no longer function.....

and worse of all no more formula one :eek:

.....and no civilization....well big deal about that

yes, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its failures... :D .

Good point Arrows, real good thinking you got there :rolleyes:

What on earth does all that have to do with gun laws in the U.S.?

[ArrowsFA1]

...If anything, its relevance today is even stronger...
Right, so if the original intention was for individuals to defend themselves generally and from government specifically, you're saying that both reasons are as relevant today if not more so. Is that a correct interpretation?

I can see why individuals in the US want/need to retain the right to use a gun to defend themselves and their property, but do individuals in the US really still need to defend themselves against their own government?

[chuck34]

Today, that same justification does not appear to apply. The US is a well established democracy. However, the right to bear arms appears to have become a very influential political movement in its own right. I'm not sure the founding fathers could have foreseen, nor intend, that to be the case. Rather I suspect that the 2nd amendment may have been seen as necessary in the short term to ensure the survival of a new nation along the lines laid out by the constitution.

Please don't take offense to this, I truely don't mean anything nasty. But if you are going to try to debate the intent of a law, especially one that has been so hotly debated over the years and all the resourse material availible on the 'net, you really should do some basic investigation into the debates surrounding it's writing and radification. The questions you are asking were all answered at the time by those who wrote it.

That being said, you are wrong about the necessisty being a short term one. I would imagine that the Founders would have been disapointed to see this country, and wonder why a revolution hadn't taken place already. "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".


The problem, as we can see today, is once that particular can of worms was opened taking the right back, or severely restricting that right, is nigh on impossible.

That is EXACTLY why gun rights were included in the Bill of Rights and not just some ordinary civil law. In order for it to be nigh on impossible to be infringed upon. These guys were smart. They knew what fundamental rights are. They knew some would want to take them away from the people. So they made it nigh on impossible to do so.

[Roamy]

I don't know about you guys but on my radar I have the new 8 shot smith and wesson 357 mag. If that is small enough the conceal carry then I am probably a buyer. With a 9mm you have to be right on target. With a 357 mag using Hornady exploders you only need to be close to win! Arm or leg will do. Plus with a 357 you can do a lot of damage to a bear so it makes for a good stream carry gun. You may be in trouble in Alaska but in the lower 48 you should survive.

[Bob Riebe]

Well, I can understand the authors of the constitution granting citizens the right to bear arms back in 1791. The US had recently gained independence and were creating a new nation so not exactly the most stable of circumstances!

Today, that same justification does not appear to apply. The US is a well established democracy. However, the right to bear arms appears to have become a very influential political movement in its own right. I'm not sure the founding fathers could have foreseen, nor intend, that to be the case. Rather I suspect that the 2nd amendment may have been seen as necessary in the short term to ensure the survival of a new nation along the lines laid out by the constitution.

The problem, as we can see today, is once that particular can of worms was opened taking the right back, or severely restricting that right, is nigh on impossible.
So you are simply saying human nature has changed.

The Founders believe rights mankind does not change what is necessary to for protection is necessary for every tomorrow.

There is nothing in history to back-up your rhetoric.

After Katrina the hurricane victims were illegaly disarmed. The criminals found out and then ran rampant. Fortunately the citizens could go to court and make sure this ILLEGAL act never happens again.

[Bob Riebe]

I can see why individuals in the US want/need to retain the right to use a gun to defend themselves and their property, but do individuals in the US really still need to defend themselves against their own government?
See what I said above about Katrina.
Now had those people resisted, there would have been dead bodies, and rather than going to court to make sure it never happens again, they would have had legal officials in court charged with murder.
Fortunately the latter did not happen, and the courts fixed the governnments illegal action, permanently.

[ArrowsFA1]

Please don't take offense to this, I truely don't mean anything nasty. But if you are going to try to debate the intent of a law, especially one that has been so hotly debated over the years and all the resourse material availible on the 'net, you really should do some basic investigation into the debates surrounding it's writing and radification. The questions you are asking were all answered at the time by those who wrote it
it's a fair point to make but quick visits to the forum don't give much time for detailed research which is why I've asked questions.

[Eki]

What on earth does all that have to do with gun laws in the U.S.?
I'm sure Foamy would have stopped Hitler, WW2, 9/11 attacks and nuclear attacks with his 357 mag.

[markabilly]

Right, so if the original intention was for individuals to defend themselves generally and from government specifically, you're saying that both reasons are as relevant today if not more so. Is that a correct interpretation?

I can see why individuals in the US want/need to retain the right to use a gun to defend themselves and their property, but do individuals in the US really still need to defend themselves against their own government?

yes sir, foreign and domestic enemies of freedom, democracy and liberty.
The fact of a well armed populace has more than guranted those rights are still here....

I do not hold that the nature of mankind in the USA is much different than anywhere else, and if given the opportunity, we could have easily had our own Hitler at some point in past history or future history. As long as there is an armed populace that particular nastiness just will not happen, be it from some foreign source or domestic.

and unfortunately, the possibility of an attack involing the use of nukes is too high to ignore, and since the Iranians are believed to planning to pull off some big burst nuke bombs at some point in time, that will totally destroy the fabric of technology that holds society together, do you not think that crime will run rampant and it will be only the strongest and best armed who survive???



No different than the Swiss, a country surounded by countries who have freely spilled blood everywhere, and the Swiss have stayed out of it because the other countries know the swiss population is armed to the max....

So when I point out in the past 100 years, the only thing that has changed is our ability and willingness to slaughter people by millions, you should listen.

Right now, Europe has lived in a golden age of peace for the last 21 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union, and for some 65 years, has not seen itself engulfed in a massive bloody war. No doubt a new record by about 40 years, as the most time, was about 20 years or less, before everyone was killing everyone else in some European country --this peace is no doubt due to the threat of nuclear destruction

Sooner or later, now or three hundred years from now, the USA will lose its superpower status and no longer provide the armed umbrealla that has kept the peace for Europe....


But think about it, some 20 years ago, right in the heart of Europe, men and women were being shot in the back and left to die, all because they wanted to escape from the Eastern block--why all the outrage about north korea which is only doing what was happening some 20 years ago in the heart of Europe???

2500 years ago, Plato said only the dead have seen the end of war

I have seen nothing that tells me that sad fact will not continue to be true until we finally completely kill ourselves off, every last human on this earth

[Yuri Laszlo]

yes sir, foreign and domestic enemies of freedom, democracy and liberty.
The fact of a well armed populace has more than guranted those rights are still here....

I do not hold that the nature of mankind in the USA is much different than anywhere else, and if given the opportunity, we could have easily had our own Hitler at some point in past history or future history. As long as there is an armed populace that particular nastiness just will not happen, be it from some foreign source or domestic.

Hitler rose to power without shooting a single German. In fact, it was his ideas and charisma that lead him to power. Having 300+ million people armed is not going to stop anyone from taking over your country or anybody elses, if the people aren't armed with the intellectual capacity to pursue a better alternative. In fact, if having guns was the ideal solution, the most dangerous areas in the US - or elsewhere - would be the richest ones, not the poorer neighborhoods.

I agree that the populace should be kept armed at all times, but not (primarily) with guns. Guns don't solve problems. Again, giving you a gun is no issue for the government if they know you feel quite confortable with the ****ty life you have and won't ever think of using said firearms to disrupt a revolution against the people them.


and unfortunately, the possibility of an attack involing the use of nukes is too high to ignore, and since the Iranians are believed to planning to pull off some big burst nuke bombs at some point in time, that will totally destroy the fabric of technology that holds society together, do you not think that crime will run rampant and it will be only the strongest and best armed who survive???I supposed you are part of the est. 98% of Americans that make less than a million dollars a year. That said, in such a scenario where all concepts that keep the society together are blown away by atomic bombs, what good will having a firearm do to you?

Sure, you'll be able to kill those who try to steal the little you have left in your house - even though most of them will only be looking for something to eat as they are likely to have lost all their possessions. And what you're gonna do later? Kill everyone that approaches you until everyone's dead and you can loot whatever's left yourself? Wouldn't that make you an iron fist, cold hearted dictator?

And what about later? Being your average Joe, I don't think you - or anyone who you know - possess the skills or the resources to asseble a production line out of scratch, which would inevitably mean that at some point everyone would run out of food and face death by starvation (if not by other armed people desperate for a snack). Now tell me if you wouldn't support a Hitler, a Stalin if they came to you in that exact moment and offered you a way out - their way out. You're armed. Would you rather kill them on the premises that they're most likely gonna turn into power abusing maniacs, and die along them?


No different than the Swiss, a country surounded by countries who have freely spilled blood everywhere, and the Swiss have stayed out of it because the other countries know the swiss population is armed to the max....Switzerland did have a sizeable army, but to say they were "aimed to the max" is a lie. During the first war, the Swiss never posed a real threat to either parties involved and wasn't attacked because it never sided with anyone.

During the WWII, the Third Reich was all over Switzerland, again they are spared from major battles because they were effectively owned by both sides, having no real industry and counting only on their financial system to bail them out of problems. Even that wasn't enough, in that the Swiss suffered attacks (direct or otherwise) from both the US and Germany.


So when I point out in the past 100 years, the only thing that has changed is our ability and willingness to slaughter people by millions, you should listen.Not true. More intercontinental wars have been fought in the past 50 years than ever before.


Right now, Europe has lived in a golden age of peace for the last 21 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union, and for some 65 years, has not seen itself engulfed in a massive bloody war. No doubt a new record by about 40 years, as the most time, was about 20 years or less, before everyone was killing everyone else in some European country --this peace is no doubt due to the threat of nuclear destruction

Sooner or later, now or three hundred years from now, the USA will lose its superpower status and no longer provide the armed umbrealla that has kept the peace for Europe....Once again, false. Crime rates all over Europe have been increasing over the past fifteen years. And the only countries were some sort of control has been achieved, it's been done through the implementation of rigid - barely legal - policies for both nationals and immigrants.

The gap between the rich and the poor widens every year. Suicide, homicide and theft rates - especially among the poorest - rates in western europe are actually higher than in America.

As for the "nuclear" threat, what about it? Both France and the UK have nuclear weapons as well as the ability to produce mass ammount of them on demand, like several other countries, including Germany, Italy, Greece and Netherlands, who have bought weapons from the US. North Korea's done two nuclear tests in the past 20 years, one of which failed, with the "successful" one, done on 2009, reaching less than half the power of the first ever nuclear bomb tested by the US in 1945. Iran is still yet to do conduct a test. The United States owns 2,5 thousand, ready to be used, bombs. Russias has 5,000.

Essentially, the point I have tried to put across here is that owning a firearm is not a sign of safety, power or democracy. For the establishment, the most dangerous people are those armed with self-awareness, conscious of what they are and what happens around themselves.

While we use guns to defend ourselves against crime, as if crime was something that happened by itself, without a cause, then we'll just be shooting ourselves on the foot.

[Jag_Warrior]

Sure, you'll be able to kill those who try to steal the little you have left in your house - even though most of them will only be looking for something to eat as they are likely to have lost all their possessions. And what you're gonna do later? Kill everyone that approaches you until everyone's dead and you can loot whatever's left yourself? Wouldn't that make you an iron fist, cold hearted dictator?

My father lived through the Great Depression. And contrary to how you're presenting this, even though there were few if any government programs (initially) to help the suffering, the situation (in rural areas) did not turn into anarchy. And then, like now in these parts, there were guns, guns and more guns. You could even (legally) buy a fully automatic Thompson submachine gun in my dad's day. This is not a 100% crime free area. But I've lived in many other places. And the way some of you guys talk about guns, we should be going Dodge City on one another 3-4 time a week. Doesn't happen. There's a human factor that many of you want to avoid discussing.



And what about later? Being your average Joe, I don't think you - or anyone who you know - possess the skills or the resources to asseble a production line out of scratch, which would inevitably mean that at some point everyone would run out of food and face death by starvation (if not by other armed people desperate for a snack). Now tell me if you wouldn't support a Hitler, a Stalin if they came to you in that exact moment and offered you a way out - their way out. You're armed. Would you rather kill them on the premises that they're most likely gonna turn into power abusing maniacs, and die along them?

Well, even though I know how to design an assembly process, I'm not sure that I understand what that has to do with food, or lack thereof. Maybe to people who grew up in cities, an animal is something to either be fearful of or something to pet. But if I see a cow, a pig, a chicken or a deer... I know that I'll be able to eat. No production line necessary. As well, even people in some cities are learning (again) how to grow food in urban gardens.



Once again, false. Crime rates all over Europe have been increasing over the past fifteen years. And the only countries were some sort of control has been achieved, it's been done through the implementation of rigid - barely legal - policies for both nationals and immigrants.

Aren't you sort of killing your point here? With ever growing, stricter controls on firearms, you say the crime rates in Europe are rising. And yet, with ever growing and looser controls on firearms use (Castle laws, concealed carry, etc.), the crime rates in the U.S. have been going down over the past decade or so.I think you were actually addressing something else, but that does provide sort of a hole in your argument, no?



The gap between the rich and the poor widens every year. Suicide, homicide and theft rates - especially among the poorest - rates in western europe are actually higher than in America.

I didn't realize that. That is a bad situation.



Essentially, the point I have tried to put across here is that owning a firearm is not a sign of safety, power or democracy. For the establishment, the most dangerous people are those armed with self-awareness, conscious of what they are and what happens around themselves.

While we use guns to defend ourselves against crime, as if crime was something that happened by itself, without a cause, then we'll just be shooting ourselves on the foot.

I think it's noble (and necessary) to try to gain a better understanding of what drives crime. Just as it's noble to try to gain a better understanding of what drives poverty, illiteracy, hunger, greed and any number of other social ills. But since those things have been plaguing mankind for all of our time on this spinning rock, I'm not prepared to disarm myself while people search for that magical solution... after they've (finally) found that elusive root cause - see, we're not even to that point yet.

It may not seem so, but I'm not trying to pick apart your argument here. And I'm not someone who will say that I "need" to own a firearm... as I've already said a couple of times in this zombie thread. Firearms ownership is simply a choice that I made a long time ago. And I'm quite pleased that I live in a place that allows me that choice... that freedom... that right.

If I was a really wealthy man, like say George Soros, maybe I'd be all for gun control and the total banning of firearms... well, except for my private security force, that is. My understanding (through rumor) is that ol' George's boys carry an assortment of weapons that range from mini-Uzis, MP5's and even Glock machine pistols. Oddly enough, not a single one of those weapons can be bought by a private citizen in the U.S. if they were made after 1986. Kind of like the old saying: Rich and poor are equal. A rich man has heat in the winter time and cool air in the summer time. A poor man has heat in the summer time and cool air in the winter time. See, they're equal.

As for Markabilly... if we eventually get to that apocalyptic end of time event, he knows the score. I'll offer him the same deal that I'll offer all my buds on MotorsportForum: bring me 2 cows, 4 pigs, 12 chickens and uh... 1 virgin (I prefer brunettes, BTW). Also, on Fridays before dinner, you all have to call me "Caesar" - and do that little thing where you slap your chest and then salute me. Do all that and you can stay at my little hide-away for a year - maybe longer if the garden turns out well enough. Do you people like collard greens? Well, you'll like them once you get hungry enough, won't ya? And I'm well aware of what happened to that first Caesar dude. So everybody eats with plastic knives and forks. No exceptions!

[markabilly]

Your entire post has been well written in form but has no substance


Hitler rose to power without shooting a single German. In fact, it was his ideas and charisma that lead him to power.
Initially when the nazi party had a few hundred members, yes, but Hitler's rise to power was not complete until Hindenburg dies, in August 1934.

Hitler never won a major election that would have given him this power

In the meanwhile, before the Hindeburg death, Hitler used the SA to beat, shot kill and terrorize the german population into obediance, and then on June, 30, 1934, in the infamous Night of the Long Knives, mass political murders openly occurred at the hand of Hitler, including murder of Von Schleicher, the last chancellor of germany, Rohm who was head of the SA, Gregor Strasser , and many others.....

In the three years before the night of the Long Knives, thousand were killed by savage attacks by the SA.



I agree that the populace should be kept armed at all times, but not (primarily) with guns.


WTF, you mean with knives and rocks??or nuclear bombs?? :rolleyes:


Again, giving you a gun is no issue for the government if they know you feel quite confortable with the ****ty life you have and won't ever think of using said firearms to disrupt a revolution against the people them.



Point is that a dictator can not control a population that is well armed and ready to fight their control......Never let it get to be that it is not the government "giving: you a gun, but you refusing to give it up.....


supposed you are part of the est. 98% of Americans that make less than a million dollars a year. That said, in such a scenario where all concepts that keep the society together are blown away by atomic bombs, what good will having a firearm do to you?

Sure, you'll be able to kill those who try to steal the little you have left in your house - even though most of them will only be looking for something to eat as they are likely to have lost all their possessions. And what you're gonna do later? Kill everyone that approaches you until everyone's dead and you can loot whatever's left yourself? Wouldn't that make you an iron fist, cold hearted dictator?

no one knows what they will do, but if you survive, what are you going to do when someone is armed and comes hunting??? Besides, my point is that violence and war is a part of human life, and is just as natural state as peace.....UNFORTUNATELY this is due to the male set of balls and the desire of all dickheads to prove theirs is larger



Switzerland did have a sizeable army, but to say they were "aimed to the max" is a lie. During the first war, the Swiss never posed a real threat to either parties involved and wasn't attacked because it never sided with anyone.

During the WWII, the Third Reich was all over Switzerland, again they are spared from major battles because they were effectively owned by both sides, having no real industry and counting only on their financial system to bail them out of problems. Even that wasn't enough, in that the Swiss suffered attacks (direct or otherwise) from both the US and Germany.



Just as wrong as your comments about Hitler, no time to be bothered further




More intercontinental wars have been fought in the past 50 years than ever before.




Not in Europe, for sure, unless you wish to count shooting people trying to cross the border or soviet tanks rollong over people trying to be free in eastern europe



Once again, false. Crime rates all over Europe have been increasing over the past fifteen years. And the only countries were some sort of control has been achieved, it's been done through the implementation of rigid - barely legal - policies for both nationals and immigrants.

The gap between the rich and the poor widens every year. Suicide, homicide and theft rates - especially among the poorest - rates in western europe are actually higher than in America.




can not disagree there with you :D



As for the "nuclear" threat, what about it? Both France and the UK have nuclear weapons as well as the ability to produce mass ammount of them on demand, like several other countries, including Germany, Italy, Greece and Netherlands, who have bought weapons from the US. North Korea's done two nuclear tests in the past 20 years, one of which failed, with the "successful" one, done on 2009, reaching less than half the power of the first ever nuclear bomb tested by the US in 1945. Iran is still yet to do conduct a test. The United States owns 2,5 thousand, ready to be used, bombs. Russias has 5,000.




and so???? the whole world remains posed to do all sorts of ultimate harm to its self, that if anything the world is now a far more dangerous place then it was 220 years ago,,,,but we are all concentrating on what a gun might do.......esp when it can be used to protect one' self??

Duh



Essentially, the point I have tried to put across here is that owning a firearm is not a sign of safety, power or democracy. For the establishment, the most dangerous people are those armed with self-awareness, conscious of what they are and what happens around themselves.

While we use guns to defend ourselves against crime, as if crime was something that happened by itself, without a cause, then we'll just be shooting ourselves on the foot.


well, I would rather shoot myself in the foot, than have some a$$hole shoot me and family in the head

[markabilly]

As for Markabilly... if we eventually get to that apocalyptic end of time event, he knows the score. I'll offer him the same deal that I'll offer all my buds on MotorsportForum: bring me 2 cows, 4 pigs, 12 chickens and uh... 1 virgin (I prefer brunettes, BTW). Also, on Fridays before dinner, you all have to call me "Caesar" - and do that little thing where you slap your chest and then salute me. Do all that and you can stay at my little hide-away for a year - maybe longer if the garden turns out well enough. Do you people like collard greens? Well, you'll like them once you get hungry enough, won't ya? And I'm well aware of what happened to that first Caesar dude. So everybody eats with plastic knives and forks. No exceptions!

The old lady will be coming along, and while she ain't no brunettte, she is a virgin

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1269/5187506635_dbd39012d0.jpg[/QUOTE]


She say, hey Jag, I got something that will slap you in the chest and elswhere real good .... make you see Jesus, but don't worry it is plastic ;) ;)

I already got a broke down ole mule named caeser, but we could have him for dinner....or keep the mule and have the other caeser for dinner

[Retro Formula 1]

So let's just get rid of the whole Constitution all together? Afterall it's just too out of date. That freedom of speach thing is an outdated concept, let's sensor the press and assembly. Due process, who needs it? Trial by jury, what an outdated concept. Cruel and unusual punishment? Have at it.

Is it me or have you just not only shot yourself in the foot but blown off each limb with your legally held handgun?

Freedom of speech? Censorship of the press? Trial by Jury? Cruel and unusual punishments? America these days is more associated with breaching these principles than upholding them.

[Yuri Laszlo]

Aren't you sort of killing your point here? With ever growing, stricter controls on firearms, you say the crime rates in Europe are rising. And yet, with ever growing and looser controls on firearms use (Castle laws, concealed carry, etc.), the crime rates in the U.S. have been going down over the past decade or so.I think you were actually addressing something else, but that does provide sort of a hole in your argument, no?

I'll just adress this bit of your reply, for I think it answers all your questions.

My argument is not against having guns. My argument is against the false sense of safety and quality of life that some people (based on the replies here) claim to achieve through having a firearm.

I believe in the right of self-defense, and do think you should be able to defend yourself against home invasions or assaults. What I try to argue is that you don't need to disarm the population to keep them under control. Any Americans who think the right to own a gun is what keeps the country on the right track are lying to themselves. That's what the founding fathers had in mind 200 years ago, when Capitalism was a revolutionary force. Not just that, but some of the first leaders of the country had some sort of anarchist inclination as well, like Thomas Jefferson.

That's not the case today. We (including myself and everyone else living under capitalist "democracies") have been lured to a false sense of well being. We don't read, we don't discuss our problems, we don't even know who our neighboors are. We don't care. That's my point. We shouldn't need no dictators to see how bad our quality of life is. We're not free. We are mere pawns to the handful of people who control the world's economy, doing everything they can to keep ourselves happy with our toys while they do whatever pleases them.

The US could become the world's greatest place ever, if only the people started to see beyond their CNNs and Foxes and used your right to carry weapons for a greater good. But instead, most of you choose to hail your self sufficiency and shout abuse at whoever offers a different approach, because they are all little communist *******s.

[markabilly]

I'll just adress this bit of your reply, for I think it answers all your questions.

My argument is not against having guns. My argument is against the false sense of safety and quality of life that some people (based on the replies here) claim to achieve through having a firearm.

I believe in the right of self-defense, and do think you should be able to defend yourself against home invasions or assaults. What I try to argue is that you don't need to disarm the population to keep them under control. Any Americans who think the right to own a gun is what keeps the country on the right track are lying to themselves. That's what the founding fathers had in mind 200 years ago, when Capitalism was a revolutionary force. Not just that, but some of the first leaders of the country had some sort of anarchist inclination as well, like Thomas Jefferson.

That's not the case today. We (including myself and everyone else living under capitalist "democracies") have been lured to a false sense of well being. We don't read, we don't discuss our problems, we don't even know who our neighboors are. We don't care. That's my point. We shouldn't need no dictators to see how bad our quality of life is. We're not free. We are mere pawns to the handful of people who control the world's economy, doing everything they can to keep ourselves happy with our toys while they do whatever pleases them.

The US could become the world's greatest place ever, if only the people started to see beyond their CNNs and Foxes and used your right to carry weapons for a greater good. But instead, most of you choose to hail your self sufficiency and shout abuse at whoever offers a different approach, because they are all little communist *******s.

Now you are making much better sense

[Bob Riebe]

Is it me or have you just not only shot yourself in the foot but blown off each limb with your legally held handgun?

Freedom of speech? Censorship of the press? Trial by Jury? Cruel and unusual punishments? America these days is more associated with breaching these principles than upholding them.
Yes it is, especially Freedom of Speech, but for now they realize firearms are best left alone, so they attack what ever items they feel the populace is too stupid to effectively defend.

[chuck34]

Is it me or have you just not only shot yourself in the foot but blown off each limb with your legally held handgun?

Freedom of speech? Censorship of the press? Trial by Jury? Cruel and unusual punishments? America these days is more associated with breaching these principles than upholding them.

So instead of trying to right the wrongs you percieve, let's just double down and get rid of all freedom all together. Wow you're an easy one, you'll be the first one in line to follow Big Brother won't you?

[BDunnell]

Markabilly is a vet who has been there and done that, whilst having to deal with two-faced cluster-**** brass and politicians.

His forward form of speaking may result from having to deal with too much of the illogic prattle that is sometimes put forth here in the past.

'Forward form of speaking'? Personally, I find a lot of it all but unintelligible, and I'm not saying that out of a desire to be insulting.

[BDunnell]

UK, a once great nation, now a fourth rate country, weakened internally by the loss of its very best in various wars, has fallen into that into the slothful way of living that happens to those who become overly dependant upon others for their ultimate survival, a product of their welfare state, where the weak are nourished, yet resentful of their impotency, they slander others out of spite and jealousy. Almost everyone here is whining does not live here, but are so worried about this country, but what they really want is to pull us down to their level

When, pray, was your last visit to the UK?

By the way, a brief response in English would be appreciated.

[Retro Formula 1]

Yes it is, especially Freedom of Speech, but for now they realize firearms are best left alone, so they attack what ever items they feel the populace is too stupid to effectively defend.

So, freedom of speech is the right of who holds the gun. Mmmm.

I do pity you. My Country is no shining beacon these days but I appreciate it's foibles.

You seem smug in ignorance, tricking yourself that the principles of your constitution are alive and kicking, defended by a flag, a gun and delusion.

Guns are not some sacrosanct corner of democracy. They are weapons. Tools to kill, maim, murder, destroy. I find the only thing more distasteful than the coveting of money is the love of weapons.

You might think you are preserving your freedom and democracy behind a .38 but in fact you have sold out already my friend and your rights are set in ice as the sun comes up.

[Retro Formula 1]

So instead of trying to right the wrongs you percieve, let's just double down and get rid of all freedom all together. Wow you're an easy one, you'll be the first one in line to follow Big Brother won't you?

Sorry, what's "Double Down".

If you are trying to say I'm a pushover, then you may be right. I would rather be on my knees looking up at a barrel with a principle intact than staring down the barrel with an absence of originality or morality.

As I have said previously, it takes a coward to bring a gun into an argument but a man to refuse. I guess you will never understand that and that leaves me with a rather perverse sense of smugness. :D

[Jag_Warrior]

I'll just adress this bit of your reply, for I think it answers all your questions.

My argument is not against having guns. My argument is against the false sense of safety and quality of life that some people (based on the replies here) claim to achieve through having a firearm.

In that case, I believe we are in agreement.



I believe in the right of self-defense, and do think you should be able to defend yourself against home invasions or assaults. What I try to argue is that you don't need to disarm the population to keep them under control. Any Americans who think the right to own a gun is what keeps the country on the right track are lying to themselves. That's what the founding fathers had in mind 200 years ago, when Capitalism was a revolutionary force. Not just that, but some of the first leaders of the country had some sort of anarchist inclination as well, like Thomas Jefferson.

Again, I think you make some excellent and accurate points.


That's not the case today. We (including myself and everyone else living under capitalist "democracies") have been lured to a false sense of well being. We don't read, we don't discuss our problems, we don't even know who our neighboors are. We don't care. That's my point. We shouldn't need no dictators to see how bad our quality of life is. We're not free. We are mere pawns to the handful of people who control the world's economy, doing everything they can to keep ourselves happy with our toys while they do whatever pleases them.

This is more philosophical... as in, "what is reality?", "what is freedom?", "what is happiness?", etc. I do agree that many people today do display a sense of well being which is based on how many possessions they own or what brand they are. And I think recent studies have shown that we are becoming less and less inclined to interact with others in the "real world". Just look at the "social networking" and dating sites that abound. And hell, we're on a message board forum discussing these issues right now. But on the positive side, you're in Brazil, I'm in the U.S., BDunnell is in Germany, Eki is in Finland, Daniel is in the UK... and whether we are agreeing or disagreeing, we are separated by thousands of miles and yet, we are talking. IMO, that is a net positive that was not possible before. And that is one of the reasons that I have remained on this board for so long.


The US could become the world's greatest place ever, if only the people started to see beyond their CNNs and Foxes and used your right to carry weapons for a greater good. But instead, most of you choose to hail your self sufficiency and shout abuse at whoever offers a different approach, because they are all little communist *******s.

One must remember that the United States was not much more than an idealistic concept at its inception. The founders took lessons learned from England, the "mother country", as well as ancient Rome and Greece. And while there was much writing and talk of freedom and equality, the backdrop was one which included slavery, oppression and inequality based on race, gender and religion. Like all people, we certainly have the potential to do better... to be better. But at the end of the day, we are as limited by the same character traits, that have limited mankind since the beginning, as any other nationality.

As we discuss these issues, I would suggest that we glance at my signature line from time to time. I came late in my father's life. And I was blessed and fortunate to be able to hear about how things were when he was a young boy growing up in Depression era America. But while his experiences were much different than my own, even his experiences were probably MUCH different than what his father or grandfather experienced. All we really know (truly understand) is what we experience. And unfortunately, what we experience is limited by time.

[BDunnell]

So, freedom of speech is the right of who holds the gun. Mmmm.

I do pity you. My Country is no shining beacon these days but I appreciate it's foibles.

You seem smug in ignorance, tricking yourself that the principles of your constitution are alive and kicking, defended by a flag, a gun and delusion.

Guns are not some sacrosanct corner of democracy. They are weapons. Tools to kill, maim, murder, destroy. I find the only thing more distasteful than the coveting of money is the love of weapons.

You might think you are preserving your freedom and democracy behind a .38 but in fact you have sold out already my friend and your rights are set in ice as the sun comes up.

Allow me to pre-empt the response I should think is coming your way from a certain quarter by stating that your rhetoric is vacuous and obtuse, and that you are a legend only in your own mind. There, that's got that one out of the way.

Needless to say, I agree very much with the points you make, and would consider being the subject of the ire of certain other contributors to be a badge of honour.

[BDunnell]

In that case, I believe we are in agreement.




Again, I think you make some excellent and accurate points.



This is more philosophical... as in, "what is reality?", "what is freedom?", "what is happiness?", etc. I do agree that many people today do display a sense of well being which is based on how many possessions they own or what brand they are. And I think recent studies have shown that we are becoming less and less inclined to interact with others in the "real world". Just look at the "social networking" and dating sites that abound. And hell, we're on a message board forum discussing these issues right now. But on the positive side, you're in Brazil, I'm in the U.S., BDunnell is in Germany, Eki is in Finland, Daniel is in the UK... and whether we are agreeing or disagreeing, we are separated by thousands of miles and yet, we are talking. IMO, that is a net positive that was not possible before. And that is one of the reasons that I have remained on this board for so long.



One must remember that the United States was not much more than an idealistic concept at its inception. The founders took lessons learned from England, the "mother country", as well as ancient Rome and Greece. And while there was much writing and talk of freedom and equality, the backdrop was one which included slavery, oppression and inequality based on race, gender and religion. Like all people, we certainly have the potential to do better... to be better. But at the end of the day, we are as limited by the same character traits, that have limited mankind since the beginning, as any other nationality.

As we discuss these issues, I would suggest that we glance at my signature line from time to time. I came late in my father's life. And I was blessed and fortunate to be able to hear about how things were when he was a young boy growing up in Depression era America. But while his experiences were much different than my own, even his experiences were probably MUCH different than what his father or grandfather experienced. All we really know (truly understand) is what we experience. And unfortunately, what we experience is limited by time.

While I may disagree with some of what you say, you sure know how to make thought-provoking points in a polite and genuinely, as opposed to affectedly, articulate fashion. Much respect.

[markabilly]

'Forward form of speaking'? Personally, I find a lot of it all but unintelligible, and I'm not saying that out of a desire to be insulting.

still trolling and trying to be coy, and still trying to talk about people rather than issues and facts.
Bet you miss Ioan and Tamb, you were so good at baiting them with your coy ways.....

[markabilly]

When, pray, was your last visit to the UK?

By the way, a brief response in English would be appreciated.

после того, как Вы отвечаете на мои вопросы

[markabilly]

Sorry, what's "Double Down".

If you are trying to say I'm a pushover, then you may be right. I would rather be on my knees looking up at a barrel with a principle intact than staring down the barrel with an absence of originality or morality.



You must have learned that while visiting the gas chambers of those concentration camps, or was it while staring at the Berlin Wall while it was still errect?
I note that you never could answer the question about what to be learned there, nor any of the other questions posed to you, but you avoided answering.


But glad to see you have owned up enough to say you would rather be on your knees looking up a gun, since the first step in trying in rehab from being a coward is to admit what you are.

[markabilly]

As we discuss these issues, I would suggest that we glance at my signature line from time to time. I came late in my father's life. And I was blessed and fortunate to be able to hear about how things were when he was a young boy growing up in Depression era America. But while his experiences were much different than my own, even his experiences were probably MUCH different than what his father or grandfather experienced. All we really know (truly understand) is what we experience. And unfortunately, what we experience is limited by time.

"Every generation's memory is exactly as long as its own experience." --John Kenneth Galbraith


http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums//attachment.php?attachmentid=2705&d=1295749099
a 17 year old is carried back into east germany after being shot and left to bleed to death

[markabilly]

"Every generation's memory is exactly as long as its own experience." --John Kenneth Galbraith


http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums//attachment.php?attachmentid=2705&d=1295749099
a 17 year old is carried back into east germany after being shot and left to bleed to death

[Bob Riebe]

So, freedom of speech is the right of who holds the gun. Mmmm.

I do pity you. My Country is no shining beacon these days but I appreciate it's foibles.

You seem smug in ignorance, tricking yourself that the principles of your constitution are alive and kicking, defended by a flag, a gun and delusion.

Guns are not some sacrosanct corner of democracy. They are weapons. Tools to kill, maim, murder, destroy. I find the only thing more distasteful than the coveting of money is the love of weapons.

You might think you are preserving your freedom and democracy behind a .38 but in fact you have sold out already my friend and your rights are set in ice as the sun comes up.
I really have no idea what you are speaking of as nothing I said is related to it.
I can only assume your own prejudices clouded your reading ability.

[Bob Riebe]

Sorry, what's "Double Down".

If you are trying to say I'm a pushover, then you may be right. I would rather be on my knees looking up at a barrel with a principle intact than staring down the barrel with an absence of originality or morality.

As I have said previously, it takes a coward to bring a gun into an argument but a man to refuse. I guess you will never understand that and that leaves me with a rather perverse sense of smugness. :D Only a fool goes into an armed conflict unarmed, which I guess you will never understand which makes you look rather perversely ignorant.

[Bob Riebe]

Allow me to pre-empt the response I should think is coming your way from a certain quarter by stating that your rhetoric is vacuous and obtuse, and that you are a legend only in your own mind. There, that's got that one out of the way.

Needless to say, I agree very much with the points you make, and would consider being the subject of the ire of certain other contributors to be a badge of honour.Then your reading ability is as faulty as you say marka's writing skill is.

[Bob Riebe]

Switzerland did have a sizeable army, but to say they were "aimed to the max" is a lie. During the first war, the Swiss never posed a real threat to either parties involved and wasn't attacked because it never sided with anyone.

During the WWII, the Third Reich was all over Switzerland, again they are spared from major battles because they were effectively owned by both sides, having no real industry and counting only on their financial system to bail them out of problems. Even that wasn't enough, in that the Swiss suffered attacks (direct or otherwise) from both the US and Germany.

Not true. More intercontinental wars have been fought in the past 50 years than ever before.

Do you have any facts to back this up or are you just changing history to make the Swiss look foolish because they are well armed and have a defense system few would want to challenge.

[Bob Riebe]

Just coming back to this thread to see how it is evolving and to be honest I think most people here have lost the ability to debate and some of the nastiness is unnecessary.

I'll quote something I said a few pages ago which sums up the difference we see on views in this thread:

Nobody has changed their opinion, I know I haven't and am not likely to. This thread could reach a hundred pages and I think nothing would change. The fact insults are becoming the only form of response shows people are running out of intelligent responses, and its run its course.

Do everyone a favour and close the thread Mark... :) WHY?
Because Dunnell is back with his posts that attack posters but exceedingly rarely address the topic?

[Bob Riebe]

I think theres a few people on here doing abit of that on both sides so no not just because of BDunnell. You've just put yourself in that catagory even if you didn't realise it by having a dig at him yourself which kind of proves my point.

The thread has run its course. I'm happy I live in a society where I don't need a gun for protection and you live in a socirty where you are happy to have a gun for protection. Great, everyones a winner.
Yes and no.
I was addressing your statement which was a shotgun dig at posters.

You are correct little will change, but the atmosphere is actually quite civil as those questioning the U.S. gun laws have little to nothing to question its validity, although I stil am amazed how anyone can thing that legally owned firearms are a problem, whilst totally ignoring the fact criminals laugh at laws that are supposed to disarms them.