US Gun Laws [Archive] - Motorsport Forums

shazbot

9th January 2011, 22:28

BDunnell

9th January 2011, 22:30

This is an impossible thread to keep civilised. Good idea, but the vehemence that attaches itself to both sides of the argument prevents it.

shazbot

9th January 2011, 22:39

Well it's worth a try! Maybe just you and I then!

Bob Riebe

9th January 2011, 23:03

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!?

What does regulation of gun ownership have to do with criminals committing armed crimes?

Daniel

9th January 2011, 23:15

What does regulation of gun ownership have to do with criminals committing armed crimes?
Are you sure?

Rollo

9th January 2011, 23:16

What does regulation of gun ownership have to do with criminals committing armed crimes?

How did the criminals get the guns in the first place?
If criminals are committing armed crimes, then someone at some point must have owned the gun in the first place for the criminals to have committed those armed crimes.

Daniel

9th January 2011, 23:17

markabilly

9th January 2011, 23:18

What does regulation of gun ownership have to do with criminals committing armed crimes?

you got it the question a bit too narrow.

"Armed crime" implies a firearm.

The correct question would be:
What does regulation of gun ownership have to do with criminals committing violent crime?

And the answer would be well, duh, nothing, if one is someone who lives on their feet rather than their knees.......

if I thought that eliminating all guns and/or strictly regulating their use throughout the world would stop violent crime, I would support it without hesitation. Unfortunately, it is the nature of too many who would dominate the weak, and take everything they could from anybody unable to stop them, and that is why I will be keeping a weapon handy.

shazbot

9th January 2011, 23:20

Bob Riebe

9th January 2011, 23:21

How did the criminals get the guns in the first place?
If criminals are committing armed crimes, then someone at some point must have owned the gun in the first place for the criminals to have committed those armed crimes.
Some one, at some point, did not have to legally own the gun.

Regulating legal owners does nothing to stop criminal use of guns.

Where they get them is a mute point. They are not buying them legally.
(If you want to do a deep search, you may be able to find statistics for criminal use by legally owned weapons at one of the U.S. govt. or research site.)

You cannot regulate illegal gun trafficking.

shazbot

9th January 2011, 23:24

if I thought that eliminating all guns and/or strictly regulating their use throughout the world would stop violent crime, I would support it without hesitation. Unfortunately, it is the nature of too many who would dominate the weak, and take everything they could from anybody unable to stop them, and that is why I will be keeping a weapon handy.

Given that do you not think that by reducing the amount of guns out there would automatically reduce gun related deaths? I include homicide, suicide and accidental in this.

By having you gun handy do you feel safe, or are you actually safer? I'm not sure.

Bob Riebe

9th January 2011, 23:25

Daniel

9th January 2011, 23:28

Regulation, or fear of greater regulation, is why firearm sales soared after Pres. Obama was elected.
The firearms are out there. The only way to reduce legally owned firearms is for a government to confiscate them. The second Amendment exists to arm citizens to protect them against the government taking away their Constitutional rights.

So because this happened you're saying that it's the right thing?

shazbot

9th January 2011, 23:28

Some one, at some point, did not have to legally own the gun.

Regulating legal owners does nothing to stop criminal use of guns.

Where they get them is a mute point. They are not buying them legally.
(If you want to do a deep search, you may be able to find statistics for criminal use by legally owned weapons at one of the U.S. govt. or research site.)

You cannot regulate illegal gun trafficking.

That is a good point. Can we agree that we need to reduce the number of guns - let start with illegal guns? Forget for the moment the logistics of this. I'd just like to find common ground.

Daniel

9th January 2011, 23:29

Where they get them is a mute point.

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

markabilly

9th January 2011, 23:31

The real problem has been and remains the lack of individual responsibility, and the imposition of very uniform and very harsh punishment upon those who would transgrees the rights of others. Such would require their permanent removal from society.

But it is easier to blame things and other people, or even society itself.
Because to think otherwise, would require that instead of banning guns from society, we would have to ban criminals from society, but the latter would be just too much of a real heartbreaker for too many intellectuals and others to endure.

Until that banning, permanently, of people like that, as harsh as it may seem, the ultimate problem will remain, and people will continue to die needlessly.

Then there becomes the issue of a freedom that this society has long cherished, and that freedom has been protected by private gun ownership.

No different than what one had with the Swiss in WW2, where the germans decided not to attack the Swiss, due to their well trained militia and universal ownership of firearms.

Bob Riebe

9th January 2011, 23:32

Erm it's a moot point. If I didn't know any better I'd say that English isn't your first language :laugh:
No where criminals get them is not a point worth speaking of when we are speaking of legal regulation, therefore it is a silent point.

Rollo

9th January 2011, 23:33

The second Amendment exists to arm citizens to protect them against the government taking away their Constitutional rights.

How?

I'm afraid that I don't see in practice how this theory works.

BDunnell

9th January 2011, 23:34

No where criminals get them is not a point worth speaking of when we are speaking of legal regulation, therefore it is a silent point.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but in this case the spelling is indeed 'moot'.

Bob Riebe

9th January 2011, 23:35

That is a good point. Can we agree that we need to reduce the number of guns - let start with illegal guns? Forget for the moment the logistics of this. I'd just like to find common ground.

What law, can control movement of guns that are considered illegal?
None.

What law can regulate the use of guns that are considered illegal?
None.

A problem is too many people think laws regulating legal firearms some how have some magical effect against criminals and the tools they use.

Daniel

9th January 2011, 23:39

No where criminals get them is not a point worth speaking of when we are speaking of legal regulation, therefore it is a silent point.

I think someone is confused

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&expIds=17259,23756,24472,24878,27147,27400,28155&xhr=t&q=mute+point&cp=6&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=mute+p&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=fcf6c4cbd0bbfd1c

Daniel

9th January 2011, 23:40

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but in this case the spelling is indeed 'moot'.
Are you sure?

Bob Riebe

9th January 2011, 23:40

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but in this case the spelling is indeed 'moot'.
Moot means impractical.

Laws to govern illegal weapons are not impractical, they are foolish. Such a point should be muted, silenced, because at best it is foolish, or at worse is a farce to fool the populace.

markabilly

9th January 2011, 23:44

. The second Amendment exists to arm citizens to protect them against the government taking away their Constitutional rights.
.

No better example can be found than the American Revolution. It was not a real revolution but a reactionary response to Great Britain's actions, when Great Britain decided to more strenously in impose more control and take away rights that the famrmers and others believed worthy of protection to the point gving their lives in defense.

In the absence of those guns, there would have been no independance. The continued presence of those weapons continues to provide a concrete assurance to people like me, that mere words and empty promises of "freedom" from some government official will never have.

Daniel

9th January 2011, 23:45

Moot means impractical.

Laws to govern illegal weapons are not impractical, they are foolish. Such a point should be muted, silenced, because at best it is foolish, or at worse is a farce to fool the populace.

You really should go back to school. It's nothing to do with impractical.

markabilly

9th January 2011, 23:47

You really should go back to school. It's nothing to do with impractical.
and your post has nothing to do with the topic. We, and even you, knew exactly what he meant.

Rollo

9th January 2011, 23:47

Laws to govern illegal weapons are not impractical, they are foolish. Such a point should be muted, silenced, because at best it is foolish, or at worse is a farce to fool the populace.

They work in Australia. Illegal weapons where discovered are confiscated by the police, and the people who were in possession of them are charged.
In NSW the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998, covers this quite effectively.

Daniel

9th January 2011, 23:48

and your post has nothing to do with the topic. We, and even you, knew exactly what he meant.
If he wants to be taken seriously though, he should try to talk some sense and try and spell properly.

markabilly

9th January 2011, 23:52

If he wants to be taken seriously though, he should try to talk some sense and try and spell properly.
form over substance is always more important, no doubt in academic debates in the opinion of many, but I think he has talked sense that many others should see easy enough, but no, I guess not

Daniel

9th January 2011, 23:54

form over substance is always more important, no doubt in academic debates in the opinion of many, but I think he has talked sense that many others should see easy enough, but no, I guess not
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.....

chuck34

9th January 2011, 23:55

That is a good point. Can we agree that we need to reduce the number of guns - let start with illegal guns? Forget for the moment the logistics of this. I'd just like to find common ground.

Yes, I'll agree with that. There are already PLENTY of gun laws out there, and PLENTY of guns obtained outside those laws. So once you can show me 100% enforcement of the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, I will have a discussion on the possibility of adding more gun control laws to the books. Until we reach 100% enforcement of what we have, don't you agree that additional laws are premature at best?

BDunnell

9th January 2011, 23:56

BDunnell

9th January 2011, 23:57

In the absence of those guns, there would have been no independance. The continued presence of those weapons continues to provide a concrete assurance to people like me, that mere words and empty promises of "freedom" from some government official will never have.

On that basis, do you believe that every nation that does not have gun laws exactly along the lines of those in force in the USA is less free as a result?

markabilly

9th January 2011, 23:58

They work in Australia. Illegal weapons where discovered are confiscated by the police, and the people who were in possession of them are charged.
In NSW the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998, covers this quite effectively.

All too true, but alas, the USA is not the same.

The borders are different, indeed even the immigration laws are different, and Australia never had to face the challenges that gave birth to this country.

Someday that situation may well change a few years down the road, and when they come for those who have no weapons, they will either die on their feet or crawl on their knees, but they will have no ability to defeat their oppressors.

Rollo

10th January 2011, 00:00

No better example can be found than the American Revolution. It was not a real revolution but a reactionary response to Great Britain's actions, when Great Britain decided to more strenuously in impose more control and take away rights that the farmers and others believed worthy of protection to the point giving their lives in defense..

Mounting a "revolution" against the United States would be an act of treason though.

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

A law which affords a right, doesn't give someone a new right to break the law. The logic doesn't follow.

markabilly

10th January 2011, 00:04

On that basis, do you believe that every nation that does not have gun laws exactly along the lines of those in force in the USA is less free as a result?
I believe their freedom, to the extent that it exists the same or greater amount or even close to the USA, is very fragile and easily broken.

Indeed, in such cases, it is dependant entirely on the good graces of its government or other governments who might take it away.

Maybe not today or next year, but there will come the day when it will be different for many, I fear.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 00:04

Are we to believe from all this that the founding fathers are considered infallible by a large section of the US population?

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 00:05

I believe their freedom, to the extent that it exists the same or greater amount or even close to the USA, is very fragile and easily broken.

Indeed, in such cases, it is dependant entirely on the good graces of its government or other governments who might take it away.

Maybe not today or next year, but there will come the day when it will be different for many, I fear.

One might be forgiven for thinking that this is all rather nebulous.

shazbot

10th January 2011, 00:09

What I wanted to ask you markabilly is if you think we need to have fewer illegal guns. If we can agree on that then we can move forward. I think we have to start with this very basic problem, as obvious as the answer may be.
If I may suggest, can we keep the thread fairly tightly focused on gun control in the US today. I appreciate the history that has got us to this point but I'd like to explore peoples thoughts on ways to reduce the number of gun related deaths.

chuck34

10th January 2011, 00:10

markabilly

10th January 2011, 00:12

Mounting a "revolution" against the United States would be an act of treason though.

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

A law which affords a right, doesn't give someone a new right to break the law. The logic doesn't follow.

The time may come when many of us might be quilty of treason, for I absolutely believe as follows:

When in the Course of Human Events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life liberty and happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute depotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

markabilly

10th January 2011, 00:17

You do realize that the American Revolution was in fact an act of treason against the Crown?

"Gentlemen, we must now hang together or, most assuridly, we will all hang seperatly"
Exactly

and a few years earlier before those words, spoken at the signing by old ben Franklin, the thought that it might come down to that, was thought to be nebulous, speculative and very unlikely

Rollo

10th January 2011, 00:24

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life liberty and happiness.

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?

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 00:29

They work in Australia. Illegal weapons where discovered are confiscated by the police, and the people who were in possession of them are charged.
In NSW the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998, covers this quite effectively.

That law banned guns that were previously legal; that is a confiscatory law and would do nothing about guns illegal before the ban.

Fortunately the U.S. Constitution prevents that.

markabilly

10th January 2011, 00:30

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?

Logic is self evident to anyone except those so blind they refuse to see, as it is all about how they are used, to take it away or to protect it.

Think I will go take another nap

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 00:32

You really should go back to school. It's nothing to do with impractical.

moot1
[moot] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2.
of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.

Now read carefully, impractical is a easy way of saying- no practical value.

Back to topic.

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 00:33

The phrase is still 'moot point'.
If you wish that to be the point so be it.

shazbot

10th January 2011, 00:39

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.

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 00:43

Are we to believe from all this that the founding fathers are considered infallible by a large section of the US population?

No one has said they were infallible.
The governing document they put together is the result of tens or hundreds of years of previous governments ideas combined to be the best of the best.

It has been amended but so far has resisted being turned into a meaningless (evolving) farce.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 00:47

No one has said they were infallible.
There governing document they put together is the result of tens or hundreds of years of previous governments ideas combined to be the best of the best.

It has been amended but so far, despite attempts, but so far has resisted being turned into a meaningless (evolving) farce.

What is wrong with evolution as a principle in this case?

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 00:48

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

No they do not, they exist to provide protection. Whether it be from harm by a human, animal or starvation.

If life, liberty and happiness of another is to rob and murder, then that one deserves to have the one's life and liberty terminated.

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 00:54

What is wrong with evolution as a principle in this case?

If it evolves it becomes meaningless, as it only means what ever the powers that be at the moment want it to mean.
That is why for anything to be added to the Constitution- am amendment must be ratified by the individual states, till enough agree for the amendment to pass.

Rollo

10th January 2011, 00:56

No they do not, they exist to provide protection. Whether it be from harm by a human, animal or starvation.
If life, liberty and happiness of another is to rob and murder, then that one deserves to have the one's life and liberty terminated.

If your neighbourhood really is so dangerous that it's safest to be armed, there are deeper-rooted problems there — problems that owning weaponry in the name of security probably won't fix.

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 00:59

If your neighbourhood really is so dangerous that it's safest to be armed, there are deeper-rooted problems there — problems that owning weaponry in the name of security probably won't fix.
That is outside the scope of this thread, but does the U.S. have serious social problems, especially in some large cities- absolutely.

Owning a firearm is one way for citizens there to stop a criminal, either from having free reign, or permanently. by putting them in their grave.

airshifter

10th January 2011, 01:07

Firstly, Shazbot thanks for making another thread on this topic. It was not my intent to state that you alone were hijacking the other thread, but having seen how juvenile this issue can often become here it was more a courtesy of leaving the other thread open to discussion on that attack only. So my public apologies for making it sound as if you were a lone hijacker.

My stance is that criminals will obtain guns, but there could easily be methods to account for guns more often for the law abiding gun owner. This accompanied with stiff fines for not accounting for weapons and reporting any stolen weapons could help some... probably very little but it would be a positive for the image of the legal gun owner.

As for background I am a legal gun owner. I have seen first hand within my family both the good and evil of guns in this country. I had a brother murdered with a gun, and have also had a grandmother that protected herself with a gun while being robbed during an invasion of her home. But if all handguns were illegal, my brother would still be dead and there is a much better chance my grandmother would have died or been injured during that robbery.

As for middle ground, it is difficult to find due to the huge gap between the pro gun and anti gun crowds. Neither side really makes good efforts IMHO, and both sides seem to see it as an "all or nothing" issue. Many years ago I belonged to the NRA but refuse to associate with them these days due to a solicition I got from them that I strongly disagreed with.

Over the years I have looked at a great number of statistics involving guns in the US and other countries. Here in the US I found a great deal of evidence that among legal gun owners that ownership often prevented crimes, or assisted in stoping crimes. When it comes to violent crime, most often the weapons aren't legal. One exception to that case is suicide, which often involves legal weapons. However in that case the crime is against nobody other than that one person, and suicide by other forms is very high as well.

So overall I have a hard time accepting that legal gun ownership accounts for much of anything in crime statistics, other than a means of the crime. Many other countries adopt gun laws that do not change the violent crime rates, only the means by which the crime was committed. Dead is dead. Here in the US most statistics on violent crime are going down, and I might add in many cases going down quicker in areas that allowed concealed carry to law abiding citizens. Here in Virginia many crimes dipped after allowing concealed carry permits.

If you dig deeper into murder rates in the US, the majority are gang related shooters and victims. I would seriously doubt that many gang bangers have legal guns. Gang activity is a big deal to law enforcement these days, and slowly but surely they are making progress.

I'd personally be more than willing to find middle ground on gun ownership, and I think most law abiding owners would. It just seems that none of the politicians are really looking for a middle ground. They want to take drastic steps, such as was done in Washington D.C. And we can all see just how well that worked out.

Jag_Warrior

10th January 2011, 01:13

The only way to reduce legally owned firearms is for a government to confiscate them.

Actually, the easiest way for the government to reduce legally owned firearms would be to make private firearms ownership illegal. Then there would really be no "legally owned firearms". Correct? ;) I'm thinking of the sad case of John White (New York) as I type that. In my mind (and in my state), he did nothing wrong. Smoking a guido punk, leading a mob to your front door, would get you a medal where I live.

At least in my lifetime, the federal government has done an extremely poor job of getting guns out of the hands of those who are already legally prohibited from owning or possessing guns in the first place. So yes, in times to come, the government will probably take the easy way out and kick in the doors of (now) legal gun owners and seize their weapons. Will that make any meaningful difference in the crime stats? No. Why not? Because the same convicted felons, gang members and mafioso types who have guns now and commit violent crimes now, will still have guns then and will still commit violent crimes then.

The last time I checked, there was a "ban" on cocaine and heroin. But as we all know, a ban is nothing more than words on a piece of paper. So if a person really wants some cocaine or heroin, I'd say you can ask around and get as much of either as you want. Unless you have a population that is willing to respect and abide by whatever ban you want to dream up... as I said, it will be nothing more than idealistic words on a piece of paper.

And BTW, I am dearly sorry for what happened to Rep. Gifford and all those other people yesterday. And as I've heard that Jared Lee Loughner had some sort of criminal record, I'm not yet sure how he "legally" purchased the Glock that he used to wound and kill those people - I fully support that being looked into and corrected though. But as sorry as I am to hear about what happened in Arizona yesterday, no, I'm afraid that that tragic event doesn't affect my feelings about gun control one iota.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 01:15

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 01:19

I presume you own a gun, or guns?
Yes.

shazbot

10th January 2011, 01:22

Airshifter - Thank you so much for your considered response - exactly the kind of input I was looking for, and I'm very sorry that you have such a personal reason for speaking out on this issue. I do not own a gun, and do not think anyone should, so I hope that makes us good candidates to find some middle ground.

We have to work with with what we have today in the US - legal gun ownership, a unacceptably high death rate from guns a high number of illegal guns. Can agree on the last two points? I accept that many shootings occur within gangs and criminal groups, and as easy as it would be to push these to one side (they get what they deserve?) it's still not acceptable.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 01:24

Yes.

Would you feel safe without it/them?

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 01:34

Would you feel safe without it/them?
I feel better at home having a loaded firearm present.

I managed an apartment apprx. twenty years ago, and a renter caused a problem enough I called the police.
When the police arrived during the discussion, the renter was rather upset and said he had a shotgun and knew how to use it. (Now had this taken place with current laws, or current method of enforcing laws, the renter would have already made his own life quite miserable beyond anything I did.)

Before they left the cop asked if I needed any patrols to come by to check, I said no but asked if the renter was serious, where he had to be before I could shoot him.
The cop said shoot him through the door.

I slept with a shotgun by the bed and revolver under the pillow for quite some time after that.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 01:43

I feel better at home having a loaded firearm present.

I managed an apartment apprx. twenty years ago, and a renter caused a problem enough I called the police.
When the police arrived during the discussion, the renter was rather upset and said he had a shotgun and knew how to use it. (Now had this taken place with current laws, or current method of enforcing laws, the renter would have already made his own life quite miserable beyond anything I did.)

Before they left the cop asked if I needed any patrols to come by to check, I said no but asked if the renter was serious, where he had to be before I could shoot him.
The cop said shoot him through the door.

I slept with a shotgun by the bed and revolver under the pillow for quite some time after that.

Were I to live in the USA, there is no way I would ever acquire a firearm. Do you feel that I would therefore be taking an unnecessary risk? And were you to live where I live, and not be in possession of a firearm, would this render you concerned for your safety?

Jag_Warrior

10th January 2011, 01:50

We have to work with with what we have today in the US - legal gun ownership, a unacceptably high death rate from guns a high number of illegal guns. Can agree on the last two points? I accept that many shootings occur within gangs and criminal groups, and as easy as it would be to push these to one side (they get what they deserve?) it's still not acceptable.

What disturbs me most about the gang situation (even though I live very far removed from any such concerns these days) is there is an emerging sub-culture where there is a total lack of respect for the life and property of others. Many of the people killed by gangs are innocent by-standers and homeowners, who are just caught in the crossfire between one group of mad dogs shooting at another group of mad dogs. A kid should be able to walk to school in peace. A mother and father shouldn't have to worry about a stray bullet entering their kid's bedroom wall and killing him.

As my "day job", I get paid to fix things: manufacturing and business processes. But I really don't know how to fix people or minds. When I encounter a person who continually resists working within a proven, improved process... I just eliminate them (have them fired). So when it comes to "fixing" broken people, I'm at a complete loss. So many of these gangbanger types are just kids who have never seen or been taught anything other than what is around them everyday: violence and hustling. Education is not important. Going to jail is a rite of passage. Killing someone gets you a badge of honor and toughness. People who go to work everyday are seen as chumps. I don't know how to "fix" any of that. I wish that I did.

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 01:51

Were I to live in the USA, there is no way I would ever acquire a firearm. Do you feel that I would therefore be taking an unnecessary risk? And were you to live where I live, and not be in possession of a firearm, would this render you concerned for your safety?
You are getting down to social issues.

It depends on where one lives, with whom one associates, with whom your friends associate, etc.

Armed robbery, was not an issue in the town I live in several years ago, but now murders, and armed robbery are happening in quiet neighborhoods, where dwellers often say to reporters- "We never expected...." (the murders seem to be between, former Chicago residents who are moving out this way, so far)

Daniel

10th January 2011, 01:59

Daniel

10th January 2011, 02:01

Just out of curiosity, what sort of guns do our gun owning friends on here own?

Also, what limits do you feel (if any) should sort of weapons that you or I could own?

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 02:02

You are getting down to social issues.

It depends on where one lives, with whom one associates, with whom your friends associate, etc.

Armed robbery, was not an issue in the town I live in several years ago, but now murders, and armed robbery are happening in quiet neighborhoods, where dwellers often say to reporters- "We never expected...." (the murders seem to be between, former Chicago residents who are moving out this way, so far)

Yes, I am aware of the social dimension you outline, hence the very general nature of my enquiry. Personally, I cannot ever imagine living anywhere in my homeland, the UK, or Germany where I now reside, which would be so dangerous as to render ownership of a firearm in any sense a necessity. I used to live in south London — to listen to some people, one would think one was constantly under threat from gun crime. Well, we all know that the fear of crime far outweighs the probability of crime occurring.

anthonyvop

10th January 2011, 02:06

Yes, I am aware of the social dimension you outline, hence the very general nature of my enquiry. Personally, I cannot ever imagine living anywhere in my homeland, the UK, or Germany where I now reside, which would be so dangerous as to render ownership of a firearm in any sense a necessity. I used to live in south London — to listen to some people, one would think one was constantly under threat from gun crime. Well, we all know that the fear of crime far outweighs the probability of crime occurring.

Good for you!!! Funny how the US is full of people from England and Germany who didn't like the way they did things over there!

Oh well....Enjoy life!

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 02:08

Good for you!!! Funny how the US is full of people from England and Germany who didn't like the way they did things over there!

Oh well....Enjoy life!

I certainly will, especially now you have suggested that I do so. Thanks!

chuck34

10th January 2011, 03:22

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 discussing the fact that laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS are not enforced with 100% effectiveness is not "reasoned discussion"? How is that slipping into malaise? How much more government control, ineffectual government control by your own standard, is enough?

Honestly, how can you ADD laws on top of what you have if you can NOT ENFORCE what you already have? If you actually want a discussion, that is where you start, not with "let's add more arbitrary and ineffectual laws". You can add all the laws you want, but if they are not enforced, what does it matter?

I suppose that doesn't fit with your agenda though, so it doesn't qualify as "reasoned discussion".

Easy Drifter

10th January 2011, 04:06

As I have brought up before Canada has very strict laws on handgun and automatic weapons.
That does not stop the gangbangers most of whom are such lousy shots they rarely hit their intended target. Actually very few people are accurate with a handgun especially if someone is shooting back. Yes I have fired handguns but I do not own one.
It is not difficult to get an illegal gun in any major city in Canada despite the ban.
I lived in Toronto up until a little over 20 years ago. Even then I knew of two bars, and frequented one of them, where a handgun of your choice could be purchased with delivery the next day.
It is rarely the legally owned guns that are a problem.
Probably tighter and more through investigations of people buying legal guns might stop some of the whack jobs from getting a legal gun. However illegal guns are so easy to aquire it probably would do little good.

Rollo

10th January 2011, 05:30

Honestly, how can you ADD laws on top of what you have if you can NOT ENFORCE what you already have? If you actually want a discussion, that is where you start, not with "let's add more arbitrary and ineffectual laws". You can add all the laws you want, but if they are not enforced, what does it matter?

If you can't enforce the laws which you already have, then you quite literally have a state of anarchy ἀναρχίᾱ - "without rule(r)". Admittedly anarchy is the only system of government that works exactly as designed, but I doubt many people would want such a thing.

Roamy

10th January 2011, 05:52

Thanks for the reply Bob. I guess what I'm interested in is the belief that we should have the right to own firearms for protection. Criminals will always have guns if they deem it necessary, and of course they will use them from time to time and people will get killed regardless of were we live in the world. I just don't think we need guns, and the more regulations there are to restrict them the less there will be.

with over 200 million guns in this country you won't be restricting much. Matter of fact what you suggest would only put honest people in jail. Good case in point what my post about the guy who purchased guns legally and took them to new jersey when he moved. He got 7 years in prison by some whacko judge. the governor got rid of the judge and commuted this guys sentence.

What we need however is a more uniform set of laws. You can literally drive across the border of a state and end up in prison - how dumb is this. So really what you have here is probably more of a opinion poll on the registering of firearms. Mandatory or not. It is basically being done now when you have to qualify to purchase a gun. Don't even kid yourself that the FBI is not keeping the records.

One can always argue if more people were armed less people would have been shot in Arizona. You can also make a point that all guns must be registered and all registered guns automatically give you the right to conceal carry. Anyone caught with a unregistered gun will have the death penalty within 12 months. See you can go on and on is about every direction. Why do you care if a law abiding citizens conceal carry. Another stupid law aimed at law abiding citizens. I think you will find most criminal do not have a conceal carry permit. If you make gun ownership illegal then how are you going to get that through congress and how are you going to collect the 200 million guns in circulation.

My answer is eliminate violent criminals! This would cut down drastically on gun crimes. You will always have the kooks however. No record and just come out of the woodwork.

Also people will protect themselves in some way - so if not guns it will be bombs or some other form of weapon. I would much rather just have a gun then a few claymoors strapped around the place hooked to a infrared security system.

555-04Q2

10th January 2011, 06:05

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!?

Everyone should have the right to bear arms and protect themselves because most times our governments can't. In South Africa, the laws have become so strict that a law abiding citizen cannot get a new firearm licence anymore to protect his family, but the criminals have stolen police guns and guns bought on the black market. I'm all for people having the right to own a gun. The only exception should be people with past convictions related to violent offenses.

Roamy

10th January 2011, 06:24

Everyone should have the right to bear arms and protect themselves because most times our governments can't. In South Africa, the laws have become so strict that a law abiding citizen cannot get a new firearm licence anymore to protect his family, but the criminals have stolen police guns and guns bought on the black market. I'm all for people having the right to own a gun. The only exception should be people with past convictions related to violent offenses.

Now here is a very sensible person !! Hopefully at some point you will be able to vote a law in supporting your reasonable request.

555-04Q2

10th January 2011, 11:54

Now here is a very sensible person !! Hopefully at some point you will be able to vote a law in supporting your reasonable request.

Never gonna happen in my lifetime unfortunately. Too many bleeding heart liberals here crying for human rights for criminals and stuff the law abiding, hard working taxpayer who just wants the ability to defend himself and his family if required.

Dave B

10th January 2011, 11:57

If firearms were banned criminals would still get hold of them. A far more sensible idea would be to keep guns legal but drastically cut down on the number of licences issued. There are very few circumstances where it is necessary to own a gun, but the USA long ago crossed a tipping point where huge numbers of people have one simply because so many other people do.

Remove this paradox and you will massively cut the chances of a gun falling into the wrong hands. I feel one has to be pragmatic and accept that a total ban is unrealistic; it's also naive to suggest that you could ever totally stop criminals obtaining a firearm if they're determined enough. But the level of gun ownership in the States would be comical if it wasn't so bloody tragic.

shazbot

10th January 2011, 14:22

So discussing the fact that laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS are not enforced with 100% effectiveness is not "reasoned discussion"? How is that slipping into malaise? How much more government control, ineffectual government control by your own standard, is enough?

Honestly, how can you ADD laws on top of what you have if you can NOT ENFORCE what you already have? If you actually want a discussion, that is where you start, not with "let's add more arbitrary and ineffectual laws". You can add all the laws you want, but if they are not enforced, what does it matter?

I suppose that doesn't fit with your agenda though, so it doesn't qualify as "reasoned discussion".

What I meant by 'malaise' is the petty sniping that these forums can degenerate into very quickly. I have no agenda, just my own opinions. I value yours as much as mine. Your confrontational tone is exactly what I'm trying to avoid in this thread. As you will see one of the contributers - airshifter - has a very different outlook to mine but I'm happy to listen to his point of view as he makes some valid points. Your point about existing laws not being enforced is a good one, so that is an area we can agree on and discuss. Of course I don't have all the answers that's why we need discussion - If you don't agree with what I've said that's great - but can we all try not to form our responses with dismissive and sometimes aggressive tones? I think too many people die in gun related shootings so how do we reduce that number? News laws? Better enforcement of existing laws? Is the problem more deep rooted within our society? If so how do we combat this? It may take a generation or two but we have to start sometime? I agree it's so much more than just law enforcement.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 15:12

Never gonna happen in my lifetime unfortunately. Too many bleeding heart liberals here crying for human rights for criminals and stuff the law abiding, hard working taxpayer who just wants the ability to defend himself and his family if required.

Goodness knows what sort of lawless hellholes you and the others here advocating gun ownership in the name of personal security must live in. Most of us in Europe seem to manage without.

Retro Formula 1

10th January 2011, 15:34

Gun Laws eh? Impossible problem to solve IMHO.

You can never get rid of guns and can only control the law abiding members of society with introducing legislation so what's the point of more laws?

Criminals in the UK can easily obtain a firearm but more worrying is the ease with which young people can purchase them.

Price is also not a barrier these days with prices for a shotgun starting at £50, Handguns £150 and fully automatic weapons starting at under a grand. Ammo is also availiable at about £0.50 for a .38 upwards. These are real guns we are talking about, not the cheaper immitation firearms that cost £10 up.

So, you have a status symbol that is illegal and you can swap for a second hand push bike. Big problem!

And, this isn't hardened criminals but School Children. What Laws can you introduce to stop ego, bravado and testosterone?

Lets hope that guns become "un-cool" for the young and the police can concentrate on just banging up criminals that use them.

Retro Formula 1

10th January 2011, 15:37

Goodness knows what sort of lawless hellholes you and the others here advocating gun ownership in the name of personal security must live in. Most of us in Europe seem to manage without.

I do pity people that live in such societies but that's how some people have to live.

It's fortunate for us that in the UK, there is no more than a small gun problem compared to SA or some parts of the US.

schmenke

10th January 2011, 15:45

If your neighbourhood really is so dangerous that it's safest to be armed, there are deeper-rooted problems there — problems that owning weaponry in the name of security probably won't fix.

Exactly. Allowing firearms ownership to the general public only exasperates the problem. Unfortunately this seems to be the narrow-minded quick solution to the problem of “self-protection” from violent crime.
The solution to the root problem of an abundance of violent crime needs to be addressed in the first place.

schmenke

10th January 2011, 15:47

... I cannot ever imagine living anywhere ... where I now reside, which would be so dangerous as to render ownership of a firearm in any sense a necessity. ....

Ditto.

anthonyvop

10th January 2011, 16:55

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 17:08

I have experienced the Fascist hellhole you live in and I pity you.

Please inform me in your wisdom why modern Germany is a 'fascist hellhole' and why you 'pity me' for living there. Your accusation would be quite offensive if it came from someone with a modicum of intelligence.

chuck34

10th January 2011, 17:12

What I meant by 'malaise' is the petty sniping that these forums can degenerate into very quickly. I have no agenda, just my own opinions. I value yours as much as mine. Your confrontational tone is exactly what I'm trying to avoid in this thread. As you will see one of the contributers - airshifter - has a very different outlook to mine but I'm happy to listen to his point of view as he makes some valid points. Your point about existing laws not being enforced is a good one, so that is an area we can agree on and discuss. Of course I don't have all the answers that's why we need discussion - If you don't agree with what I've said that's great - but can we all try not to form our responses with dismissive and sometimes aggressive tones? I think too many people die in gun related shootings so how do we reduce that number? News laws? Better enforcement of existing laws? Is the problem more deep rooted within our society? If so how do we combat this? It may take a generation or two but we have to start sometime? I agree it's so much more than just law enforcement.

I'm not trying to confrontational. You just completely ignored my earlier post and then went on about how no one will have a reasonable discussion. I am trying to have a reasonable conversation, but you seem to want to ignore the fact that there are already numerous gun laws on the books that are ineffective at best.

chuck34

10th January 2011, 17:15

Exactly. Allowing firearms ownership to the general public only exasperates the problem. Unfortunately this seems to be the narrow-minded quick solution to the problem of “self-protection” from violent crime.
The solution to the root problem of an abundance of violent crime needs to be addressed in the first place.

Exactly. But you don't get to the root of the violent crime problem by adding more arbitrary laws onto law abiding citizens.

Roamy

10th January 2011, 17:17

Goodness knows what sort of lawless hellholes you and the others here advocating gun ownership in the name of personal security must live in. Most of us in Europe seem to manage without.

I have spent a reasonable amount of time in Germany. I did not feel the necessity to have a gun. That well could be due to the mix of people and again the density of the living. If you look at some of the things we are facing here I certainly don't think you can relate. Keep in mind as you read the following, this is just one city. Closer to the border home invasions are becoming so prevalent that it has affected the price of real estate. We certainly have our safe areas as well. Living at Desert Mountain in Scottsdale AZ would probably be one of the safest places on earth. However a trip through west phoenix at about midnight could easily be your last trip. You could say this for all major cities in the US.

Lawless Hellhole is actually a good term for many places we now have. But we like to convict non violent criminals and the poor vs eliminating the violent criminal. So Ben when you visit make sure you are aware of your routes.

anthonyvop

10th January 2011, 17:18

Please inform me in your wisdom why modern Germany is a 'fascist hellhole' and why you 'pity me' for living there. Your accusation would be quite offensive if it came from someone with a modicum of intelligence.

They deny freedom of speech and expression
They deny the freedom of one to defend themselves as they see fit
The Government controls all segments of the economy

Brown, Jon Brow

10th January 2011, 17:20

They deny freedom of speech and expression
They deny the freedom of one to defend themselves as they see fit
The Government controls all segments of the economy

Germany does? :erm:

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 17:21

Roamy, I am glad one of the right-leaning Americans involved in this thread can be bothered to come out with a reasonable, sensible, non-confrontational, well-written response. However, one point...

Living at Desert Mountain in Scottsdale AZ would probably be one of the safest places on earth. However a trip through west phoenix at about midnight could easily be your last trip. You could say this for all major cities in the US.

Is it genuinely the case that one is unable to go out in such areas without risking being shot, or is this a touch of hyperbole? If not, what do you feel is the root cause of this? I cannot think of anywhere in Europe where such a situation exists. All major cities have areas that one wouldn't particularly want to be in after dark if given a choice, but nowhere can I think of would the risk seriously merit owning a gun, or any form of weapon, in order to feel safe.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 17:23

They deny freedom of speech and expression
They deny the freedom of one to defend themselves as they see fit
The Government controls all segments of the economy

Examples, please, without the benefit of Google — I mean ones that you have personal knowledge of. I must say, the notion of you presuming to lecture anyone else on the affairs of anywhere other than perhaps the street you live in is laughable, but do go on.

schmenke

10th January 2011, 17:24

Exactly. But you don't get to the root of the violent crime problem by adding more arbitrary laws onto law abiding citizens.

I'm not suggesting that legislation is the answer in any way. Crime is a social problem. One needs to stand back and look at the big picture and try to determine what is causing the social breakdown that leads to crime. I don't pretend to know how to accomplish that, but it is obvious that it's a long-term endeavor that starts with a radical change in the mind-set by citizens.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 17:26

I'm not suggesting that legislation is the answer in any way. Crime is a social problem. One needs to stand back and look at the big picture and try to determine what is causing the social breakdown that leads to crime. I don't pretend to know how to accomplish that, but it is obvious that it's a long-term endeavor that starts with a radical change in the mind-set by citizens.

Which includes a realisation on their part that their fear of crime is probably exaggerated.

Roamy

10th January 2011, 17:37

Roamy, I am glad one of the right-leaning Americans involved in this thread can be bothered to come out with a reasonable, sensible, non-confrontational, well-written response. However, one point...

Is it genuinely the case that one is unable to go out in such areas without risking being shot, or is this a touch of hyperbole? If not, what do you feel is the root cause of this? I cannot think of anywhere in Europe where such a situation exists. All major cities have areas that one wouldn't particularly want to be in after dark if given a choice, but nowhere can I think of would the risk seriously merit owning a gun, or any form of weapon, in order to feel safe.

trust me there are gang infiltrated areas of west phoenix that no one in there right mind would venture through. I have actually seen signs in a neighborhood of LA that warn you not to enter unless you reside there.

I would suspect that drug usage in Europe is increasing base on what I read. What one needs to understand is that our appetite for drugs and the money associated with the industry has ruined countries all the way to Peru.. There is so much money in the drug business cartels no longer count the money - the weigh it!!! Go figure. And I get criticized when I call for the borders to be closed.

Mark in Oshawa

10th January 2011, 17:40

Which includes a realisation on their part that their fear of crime is probably exaggerated.

If you live in small town America, yes it is, and ironically enough, they are all armed there and don't shoot each other there much more than anywhere else in the western world. No, the hideous toll of gun crime being out of proportion to the population is in the inner city, where you have gangs going at each other. Not sure what the solution is....but taking the guns away is assuming all the people using guns illegally will all the sudden obey the law. Naive thinking that....

chuck34

10th January 2011, 17:40

Which includes a realisation on their part that their fear of crime is probably exaggerated.

That does nothing to change the fact that some feel safer with a gun, and all but a very insignificant fraction of LEAGLE gun owners will ever fire their weapon in anger.

It also does not change the fact that the Second Amendment was not written for the sole purpose of personal protection. So even if everyone in the country felt perfectly safe, they still have the right to own a gun if they so choose.

billiaml

10th January 2011, 17:43

fandango

10th January 2011, 17:46

Actually, the easiest way for the government to reduce legally owned firearms would be to make private firearms ownership illegal. Then there would really be no "legally owned firearms". Correct? ......[edited]....

At least in my lifetime, the federal government has done an extremely poor job of getting guns out of the hands of those who are already legally prohibited from owning or possessing guns in the first place. So yes, in times to come, the government will probably take the easy way out and kick in the doors of (now) legal gun owners and seize their weapons. Will that make any meaningful difference in the crime stats? No. Why not? Because the same convicted felons, gang members and mafioso types who have guns now and commit violent crimes now, will still have guns then and will still commit violent crimes then.

The last time I checked, there was a "ban" on cocaine and heroin. But as we all know, a ban is nothing more than words on a piece of paper. So if a person really wants some cocaine or heroin, I'd say you can ask around and get as much of either as you want. Unless you have a population that is willing to respect and abide by whatever ban you want to dream up... as I said, it will be nothing more than idealistic words on a piece of paper.....

Excellent, excellent post. There's no question that everyone would like to see a reduction in violent crime, in the abuse and misuse of firearms, but until people have confidence that their government CAN tackle the problem you simply can't change a law and magic the problem away. It would be like making the driving test more difficult in order to tackle the problem of people who drive without a licence.

So that's where anyone has to start. There's no point in painting pro-gun people as lunatics.

Retro Formula 1

10th January 2011, 17:46

They deny freedom of speech and expression
They deny the freedom of one to defend themselves as they see fit
The Government controls all segments of the economy

Freedom of speech? If you mean the Volksverhetzung then it bans hatred against a segment of the population and includes things like the spreading of Nazi hatred and Holocaust denial.

Freedom of speech is one thing but a country must be proactive in disuading freedom of hatred and bile in my opinion.

If you want to see a country that hypocritically oppresses freedom of expression and speech, then you need look no further than your home shores.

Wikileaks and Twitter?

They also have a free press, no torture and no death penalty unlike some countries.

Roamy

10th January 2011, 17:50

Freedom of speech?

They also have a free press, no torture and no death penalty unlike some countries.

I guess we can now see your problem clearly!

Retro Formula 1

10th January 2011, 17:54

I guess we can now see your problem clearly!

My problem was probably allowing myself to be dragged off topic but back on it now :)

schmenke

10th January 2011, 18:09

Fear of crime is only part of it, though. There's also the fear that the government will become too much of a dictatorship -- and I believe that was part of the reason that the 2nd amendment was added to our constitution in the first place.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the rapid mobilisation of a militia army for the protection of the state.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 18:12

And I get criticized when I call for the borders to be closed.

Quite rightly, given that you also believe in freedom of trade, which naturally includes freedom of movement of labour.

markabilly

10th January 2011, 18:35

Please inform me in your wisdom why modern Germany is a 'fascist hellhole' and why you 'pity me' for living there. Your accusation would be quite offensive if it came from someone with a modicum of intelligence.
"modern" germany? hellhole?

Weimar is the officially designated "cultural capital of Europe", a place with hundreds of years of cultural achievements, a region that for hundreds of years, put much of the rest of the world in the shade for music, literature, culture, the arts, and on and on. The height of civilized living, and as "modern" as one could ask for throughout the centuries.

A few miles away is a town called Buchenwald.

A mere 65 years ago, my cousin helped liberate Buchenwald, although the prisoners had pretty much done that by the time they arrived, as the guards seeing the handwriting on the wall, had pretty much abandoned their posts.

Until the 1950's, the soviet union used the camp as a form of concentration camp, where they killed some 8,000 people or more.

My cousin is the one who gave me that phrase about dying on your feet rather than living on your knees, as it was his opinion, and one with which i agree, is that the people were so afraid of standing up, they choose to live on their knees in faint hope of surviving---and eventually paid the same price.

And being without weapons, and a willingness to stand up, they were an easy kill-men, women, children and babies.

60 years is a mere blink of an eye in terms of history, years less than a lifetime. My parents and cousin are still living, and remember it well.

Today too many in Europe have the same attitude, lack the willingness to stand up and the individual weapons to do it, depending too much on the USA as well as the current Russian unwillingness to play really rough.

The lesson of history is that those who have failed to learn from history, are doomed to repeat its mistakes, sooner or later. All that is needed is another Hitler or Stalin, and it all starts over again. Well perhaps not with the Swiss, who seemed to have well remembered the secrets to freedom for the last few hundred years, with their private ownership of weapons and issuing machine guns and automatic assualt weapons to members of their militia to keep in their homes

billiaml

10th January 2011, 18:39

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the rapid mobilisation of a militia army for the protection of the state.

That's part of it, true. However, at the time the constitution was drawn up, people didn't really trust standing armies because monarchs had used them to oppress the citizens of their countries.

Further evidence of this distrust is the 3rd amendment which states, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner,..."

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 18:40

"modern" germany? hellhole?

Weimar is the officially designated "cultural capital of Europe", a place with hundreds of years of cultural achievements, a region that for hundreds of years, put much of the rest of the world in the shade for music, literature, culture, the arts, and on and on. The height of civilized living, and as "modern" as one could ask for throughout the centuries.

A few miles away is a town called Buchenwald.

A mere 65 years ago, my cousin helped liberate Buchenwald, although the prisoners had pretty much done that by the time they arrived, as the guards seeing the handwriting on the wall, had pretty much abandoned their posts.

Until the 1950's, the soviet union used the camp as a form of concentration camp, where they killed some 8,000 people or more.

My cousin is the one who gave me that phrase about dying on your feet rather than living on your knees, as it was his opinion, and one with which i agree, is that the people were so afraid of standing up, they choose to live on their knees in faint hope of surviving---and eventually paid the same price.

And being without weapons, and a willingness to stand up, they were an easy kill-men, women, children and babies.

60 years is a mere blink of an eye in terms of history, years less than a lifetime. My parents and cousin are still living, and remember it well.

Today too many in Europe have the same attitude, lack the willingness to stand up and the individual weapons to do it, depending too much on the USA as well as the current Russian unwillingness to play really rough.

The lesson of history is that those who have failed to learn from history, are doomed to repeat its mistakes, sooner or later. All that is needed is another Hitler or Stalin, and it all starts over again.

I must say I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Dave B

10th January 2011, 18:46

Am I understanding correctly that you describe "modern Germany" as a hellhole based on events which happened six decades ago?

markabilly

10th January 2011, 18:48

I must say I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
and what better example can I proffer than this comment to prove my point.

The question is what side of the wire will you end up, inside or a guard on the outside, when another Hitler or some other tryrant pops up again?

I will end up free or dead.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 18:55

and what better example can I proffer than this comment to prove my point.

The question is what side of the wire will you end up, inside or a guard on the outside, when another Hitler or some other tryrant pops up again?

I will end up free or dead.

What, may I ask, is this (as usual, extremely considered) view based on? How much time have you spent in Europe, exactly? Or have you just watched a few items about it on Fox?

markabilly

10th January 2011, 18:55

Am I understanding correctly that you describe "modern Germany" as a hellhole based on events which happened six decades ago?
are you too dense to see the point ?

If happened next to Weimar, in then modern germany, so it could easliy happen right next to you.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 18:56

are you too dense to see the point ?

markabilly, I really wouldn't go around describing others as 'dense' when a lot of your posts are barely intelligible.

If happened next to Weimar, in then modern germany, so it could easliy happen right next to you.

Because we don't all have guns?

markabilly

10th January 2011, 19:01

and the only immunity from that happenning in this country, goes hand in hand with gun ownership.

markabilly

10th January 2011, 19:06

What, may I ask, is this (as usual, extremely considered) view based on? How much time have you spent in Europe, exactly? Or have you just watched a few items about it on Fox?

still trying to avoid the truth, heh?

Only been there a little, but I have seen the scars on my father, cousin, and several now deceased uncles, from bullets and bombs. Spent more time in Russia and wondering about Putin

The better question would be how much time have you spent at the ruins of Buchenwald and other concentration camps, and wondered what would it ultimately take to stop such a thing and just what would you do?

Chamberlain, "peace in our time", will get sooner or later get you nowhere but there :rolleyes:

markabilly

10th January 2011, 19:10

and the only immunity from that happenning in this country, goes hand in hand with gun ownership.
and the only immunity from that happenning in Europe has been the USA.
And when the USA is no longer a superpower, much to the delight of many a european, and no longer guardian of those freedoms you currently enjoy, who will assume that role when the big russian bear gets hungry again or some tyrant shows up in your front doorstep?

No, my money says you all will be back down, crawling on your knees again :rolleyes:

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 19:12

markabilly

10th January 2011, 19:18

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.
and when all else fails, always engage in personal attacks and name calling,
for you can not escape from the inescapable of what will happen sooner or later, with your point of view.

Of course, you fail to answer the ultimate question of where you stand or will stand (or perhaps the better word is crawl), when the USA is no longer around to keep your gonads safe at night.....

got to go, struggle for the legal tender

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 19:28

and when all else fails, always engage in personal attacks and name calling

Not at all. I believe what I said to be a perfectly reasonable comment upon your opinions.

Daniel

10th January 2011, 19:49

No one has replied to my post asking what guns they own and what guns they feel members of the public should and should not be allowed to own.

anthonyvop

10th January 2011, 19:52

Freedom of speech? If you mean the Volksverhetzung then it bans hatred against a segment of the population and includes things like the spreading of Nazi hatred and Holocaust denial.

Freedom of speech is one thing but a country must be proactive in disuading freedom of hatred and bile in my opinion.

If you want to see a country that hypocritically oppresses freedom of expression and speech, then you need look no further than your home shores.

Wikileaks and Twitter?

They also have a free press, no torture and no death penalty unlike some countries.

The need for Freedom of Speech is not to protect popular ideas but unpopular ones.

The US does not infringe on unpopular speech even though there are many on the left who wish they would.

The Issue with Wikileaks is that it is STOLEN PROPERTY and Classified information. Not a free speech issue in the least.

anthonyvop

10th January 2011, 19:53

Am I understanding correctly that you describe "modern Germany" as a hellhole based on events which happened six decades ago?

Germany is a Hellhole based on events that are happening now.

Mark

10th January 2011, 19:55

Russia isn't going to invade Europe. Who would they sell their gas to?

anthonyvop

10th January 2011, 19:55

No one has replied to my post asking what guns they own and what guns they feel members of the public should and should not be allowed to own.

I own a few.....The public should be allowed to own any and all firearms.

Retro Formula 1

10th January 2011, 20:15

No one has replied to my post asking what guns they own and what guns they feel members of the public should and should not be allowed to own.

I've got a grease gun and I'm not afraid to use it :blackeye:

Rollo

10th January 2011, 20:17

and the only immunity from that happenning in this country, goes hand in hand with gun ownership.

Supposing you were to form your own militia to overthrow the government of the United States, how much money and resources would that take?
This experiment of sorts was tried by 13 states from 1861-1865 and even with the equivalent of $548bn/year, they still couldn't manage it.

Perhaps you have doubts in the capability of the US military. That's the force you'd be up against if you decide to depose "tyrannical government"... good luck with that.

Daniel

10th January 2011, 20:17

I own a few.....The public should be allowed to own any and all firearms.
Really? Any weapon? Even a .30 cal machinegun?

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 20:42

Germany is a Hellhole based on events that are happening now.

Which 'events', specifically?

When were you last in Germany?

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 20:44

The US does not infringe on unpopular speech even though there are many on the left who wish they would.

I wish the US would infringe on inarticulate speech. Your talk radio airwaves would be virtually silent.

Jag_Warrior

10th January 2011, 20:48

Really? Any weapon? Even a .30 cal machinegun?

You've actually touched on a set of gun laws that are effective - unlike many of the other gun laws here. It is actually legal to own a fully automatic or select fire weapon in most states, per the Federal laws. But there has not been a single case of a (legally owned) full-auto or select fire weapon being used in the commission of a crime since at least 1968. I take that back. I believe there was one case: a corrupt FBI agent who gunned down a criminal informant who was about to snitch on him. But in civilian hands, there have been no offenses.

To obtain such a weapon is VERY expensive and there is a lot of red tape. You also open yourself up to incredibly high scrutiny from the BATF and local law enforcement. So most people don't bother with such weapons. And those who do, value the privilege and act accordingly.

I was supposed to take a girl to this machine gun exhibition last year, before I got with the girl I'm dating now. I got sick and she had a prior engagement, so we planned on going this year. Now that I'm involved, even though there was nothing cuddly going on between us, I guess this year is off the table too. But at some point, I would like to go.

U5e12QmG6TY

The problem we have here is not at the outer edges of the bell curve of legally owned firearms (even machine guns). Because they look so intimidating, one can easily get caught up in discussing fully automatic or even "assault" weapons, even though they are not the real problem. It is more in the middle of the curve, involving firearms (legal or illegal/semi-auto or full auto) that are in the hands of the hardcore criminal element, where most all of us could find middle ground. In or out of the NRA, I don't know of anyone who doesn't want to get guns out of the hands of established criminals. I think that's what Shazbot was looking for when he began this thread, and I commend him for that.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 20:57

It is more in the middle of the curve, involving firearms (legal or illegal/semi-auto or full auto) that are in the hands of the hardcore criminal element, where most all of us could find middle ground.

What I find most disturbing from this discussion is perhaps the notion on the part of some that there should, in effect, actually be no distinction between the legal and illegal possession of firearms.

Jag_Warrior

10th January 2011, 21:28

What I find most disturbing from this discussion is perhaps the notion on the part of some that there should, in effect, actually be no distinction between the legal and illegal possession of firearms.

Well, I would find that disturbing as well, since I don't buy into that notion. In fact, I would say that it is the illegal possession of firearms (depending on how one wants to define that term) that causes the most harm to various communities around the U.S., this tragedy involving the Congresswoman and the bystanders aside.

Daniel

10th January 2011, 21:29

I would wager that a good deal of illegal firearms were once legally owned.

As Ben says, making the distinction that the gun was illegally owned at the time of firing is just ridiculous and besides the point.

markabilly

10th January 2011, 21:36

and what better example can I proffer than this comment to prove my point.

The question is what side of the wire will you end up, inside or a guard on the outside, when another Hitler or some other tryrant pops up again?

I will end up free or dead.

still trying to avoid the truth, heh?

Only been there a little, but I have seen the scars on my father, cousin, and several now deceased uncles, from bullets and bombs. Spent more time in Russia and wondering about Putin

The better question would be how much time have you spent at the ruins of Buchenwald and other concentration camps, and wondered what would it ultimately take to stop such a thing and just what would you do?

Chamberlain, "peace in our time", will get sooner or later get you nowhere but there :rolleyes:

and the only immunity from that happenning in Europe has been the USA.
And when the USA is no longer a superpower, much to the delight of many a european, and no longer guardian of those freedoms you currently enjoy, who will assume that role when the big russian bear gets hungry again or some tyrant shows up in your front doorstep?

No, my money says you all will be back down, crawling on your knees again :rolleyes:

and when all else fails, always engage in personal attacks and name calling,
for you can not escape from the inescapable of what will happen sooner or later, with your point of view.

Of course, you fail to answer the ultimate question of where you stand or will stand (or perhaps the better word is crawl), when the USA is no longer around to keep your gonads safe at night.....

got to go, struggle for the legal tender

Still have not answered the questions.....perhaps though I live far away, I have spent more time at Buchenwald, and pondered those very specific questions, more than you.

If you have not been there, now would be a good time to go to what is left....if not there, then there are some other camp museums you could visit, esp. with the cold weather where you can feel the cold and imagine what it must have been like, to be there starving and shivering in the cold, and ponder those very questions.

Perhaps you might then realize that there is no immunity except for what measures you as an individual are prepared to take. Not in Germany nor in any other country, including this one.

But you are not alone in your way of thinking. Chamberlain and not even Winston Churchill, or any "good Germans" would have ever thought such a thing could happen........

schmenke

10th January 2011, 22:02

I would wager that a good deal of illegal firearms were once legally owned. ...

I'll take you up on that wager. I believe that most illegal firearms are procured through illegal "black market" sources.

Daniel

10th January 2011, 22:16

I'll take you up on that wager. I believe that most illegal firearms are procured through illegal "black market" sources.
But before they went to black market dealers?

Rollo

10th January 2011, 22:35

Still have not answered the questions.....perhaps though I live far away, I have spent more time at Buchenwald, and pondered those very specific questions, more than you.

If you have not been there, now would be a good time to go to what is left....if not there, then there are some other camp museums you could visit, esp. with the cold weather where you can feel the cold and imagine what it must have been like, to be there starving and shivering in the cold, and ponder those very questions.

Perhaps you might then realize that there is no immunity except for what measures you as an individual are prepared to take. Not in Germany nor in any other country, including this one.

But you are not alone in your way of thinking. Chamberlain and not even Winston Churchill, or any "good Germans" would have ever thought such a thing could happen........

I have been to KZ Dachau and I couldn't bring myself to take any photographs of the place. I don't know what, but there is something about it that still haunts the soul.

There are of course several problems with using this as a defence to arm the population against the government.
1. Gun ownership wasn't common in Europe either then or now except by the Swiss.
2. The Jews themselves both in Germany and in the diaspora, never really actively resisted the either before or during the Nazi's rise to power.
3. Even if they had, would they have been successful? I seriously doubt it. Especially considering that the Nazi war machine went on to invade Europe. Would a small pocket of disorganised armed people have been able achieve anything? The Confederates couldn't do it in America 70 odd years earlier.

Zico

10th January 2011, 23:21

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 23:22

No one has replied to my post asking what guns they own and what guns they feel members of the public should and should not be allowed to own.

Even on firearm forums, when some one asks that, the response is under-whelming.
There is no point in listing on a public forum any such information.

People may discuss the particulars of a particular firearm for serious reasons but otherwise such information is usually only exchanged in private communications.

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 23:25

If firearms were banned criminals would still get hold of them. A far more sensible idea would be to keep guns legal but drastically cut down on the number of licences issued.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently rules against such laws.

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 23:29

Goodness knows what sort of lawless hellholes you and the others here advocating gun ownership in the name of personal security must live in. Most of us in Europe seem to manage without.

What makes you think it is a hellhole?
What makes the right to protect oneself, the same as living in a hellhole.
All the so-called hellholes in the U.S., have the most draconian firearm laws.

markabilly

10th January 2011, 23:38

I have been to KZ Dachau and I couldn't bring myself to take any photographs of the place. I don't know what, but there is something about it that still haunts the soul.

There are of course several problems with using this as a defence to arm the population against the government.
1. Gun ownership wasn't common in Europe either then or now except by the Swiss.
2. The Jews themselves both in Germany and in the diaspora, never really actively resisted the either before or during the Nazi's rise to power.
3. Even if they had, would they have been successful? I seriously doubt it. Especially considering that the Nazi war machine went on to invade Europe. Would a small pocket of disorganised armed people have been able achieve anything? The Confederates couldn't do it in America 70 odd years earlier.
I went to Buchenwald because of my cousin's experience. It was not like the the death camp of Dachua, but was more of a long term work camp, yet the toll was still massive at the end. Did not go to any other camps as that place was bad enough. Odd though was the surrounding area was very beautiful and people were very nice and it was hard to imagine how such things could have occurred in such a nice geographic area until you step inside.......

OTOH, there is the similar story of a prison in Iraq, where common soldiers--not SS storm troopers---committed heinous acts. I remember Vietnam, where after close to a year of being there, my own attitude would have been... well,,,,,,so when i say there is no immunity, in any country, I think that is all too true

1. and the swiss are the only ones who have not been through what the rest of europe has been through....

2. Jewish resistance and for that matter, the resistance of all Germans to nazi power was non-existant for many reasons. Even the old generals and other powerful people hated or despised Hitler. Hitler never obtained anything close to a majority vote, but because he was willing to use armed might and everyone else was not. And as they did not have the means (guns) nor the attitude, they fell to their knees while the Nazis rose.

3. The act of resistance to such tryanny can not depend upon whether it will be successful. Indeed, in all likelihod, it probably will not. The question is not whether it will be successful, it is whether it is just.
As Patrick Henry said, "give me liberty or give me death" There is no other choice between the two, except to live on one's knees as a miserable coward. In 1776, they knew that a traitor's death was as likely than not, yet they fought anyway

and then add the criiminal backwaters that infest this country and many others, the case becomes just as strong as ever.

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 23:42

Which includes a realisation on their part that their fear of crime is probably exaggerated.

Sadly there are relatives of dead people who would say you know not, that of which you speak.

The NRA magazine has a page of official police reports of people who have used firearms to defend themselves. Sometimes being shot but not dead, because the criminal was killed first.
Being armed is a precaution. You seem to have the TV or movie image of what dealing with crime in the U.S. is like.

What is- realisation?

OH that is right it is a British thing.

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 23:51

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the rapid mobilisation of a militia army for the protection of the state.

If you mean the State, as in Maine, Vermont etc. protecting itself against the Feds., yes to a degree but that is secondary to allowing citizens to protect themselves against any government abridging their Constitutional Rights.

Bob Riebe

10th January 2011, 23:56

Supposing you were to form your own militia to overthrow the government of the United States, how much money and resources would that take?
This experiment of sorts was tried by 13 states from 1861-1865 and even with the equivalent of $548bn/year, they still couldn't manage it.

Perhaps you have doubts in the capability of the US military. That's the force you'd be up against if you decide to depose "tyrannical government"... good luck with that.

If you think the U.S. military is composed of soldier who will march against their friends, parents etc. because of something Wash. wants, you are very wrong.

A general was recently fired because he said things that made the fools in Washington look like fools. That is the norm, not the scenario you are conjuring.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 23:56

Sadly there are relatives of dead people who would say you know not, that of which you speak.

The NRA magazine has a page of official police reports of people who have used firearms to defend themselves. Sometimes being shot but not dead, because the criminal was killed first.
Being armed is a precaution. You seem to have the TV or movie image of what dealing with crime in the U.S. is like.

The main image I have of it comes from descriptions such as those put across here, in which people only seem to feel safe if they have a gun. This is not a feeling I know.

BDunnell

10th January 2011, 23:57

Rollo

10th January 2011, 23:58

If you mean the State, as in Maine, Vermont etc. protecting itself against the Feds., yes to a degree but that is secondary to allowing citizens to protect themselves against any government abridging their Constitutional Rights.

Bollocks.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

An amendment to something at law still deals with the same contents as the rest of that same law. "The State" in the Second Amendment is the same entity, ie "The State" which is the United States.
It is after all the United States Constitution.

Bob Riebe

11th January 2011, 00:00

BDunnell

11th January 2011, 00:01

What makes you think it is a hellhole?

You are clearly not an unintelligent man, so I'm a bit surprised that you didn't realise that this is precisely what I am saying — that the places where you and other gun owners or gun-possession supporters on these forums live are unlikely to genuinely be such lawless hellholes as to require you to possess firearms in order to remain, or even feel, safe.

Of your circle of friends, Bob — and leaving their politics aside — how many are also firearms owners?

shazbot

11th January 2011, 00:04

Bob Riebe

11th January 2011, 00:06

Really? Any weapon? Even a .30 cal machinegun?
If one has a clear record, and is willing to pay the $200 Federal Tax, plus the very high priceof the weapon thanks to Reagan, yes one can easily buy a machine gun.
If one takes the time to get, and pay for a class 2 or 3 dealer status, one can own and sell machine guns.
The owners of such weapons are the lowest worry of the BATF.

At the shot show in Vega some years back, I spoke with several BATF agents, and if one has a class 2 or 3 license (they are really not licenses but that is the street term,) your place of business will be checked and then the MOST IMPORTANT item is detailed paper work.
Screw up the paper work (triplicates is an absolute must to protect yourself against a BATF raid.) and your screwed.

BDunnell

11th January 2011, 00:11

This is not meant to be an inflammatory question, but if you had to use your gun and shot dead another human I wonder how you (I/we) would feel in the immediate aftermath and long term. Is it too easy to simply justify it as an inevitability in that situation? Would any remorse surface? Should I or Shouldn't I have fired? I guess it depends on our individual psychological make up. Maybe sit back for a minute a think about it. If I had a gun and I had to protect my family then of course I would. I wouldn't feel good about it. Not for one moment.

A very interesting point. It's when people say things like 'Prisoners get to live better than we do nowadays'. It's complete crap of the first order, caused by their not thinking. Would they actually like to be in prison rather than at home? If genuinely given the option, I'm pretty convinced most would not take it up. Likewise, many who are in favour in countries like the UK of being able to own and use firearms more freely would probably baulk at actually shooting someone dead, whether out of self-defence or otherwise.

markabilly

11th January 2011, 00:13

Bollocks.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

An amendment to something at law still deals with the same contents as the rest of that same law. "The State" in the Second Amendment is the same entity, ie "The State" which is the United States.
It is after all the United States Constitution.
Sorry, that is incorrect. In the US Constitution the "States" or "state" is always in reference to the individual state, of which there are now 50.

The "United States" was invisioned as a means by which the states were to be united or tied together as to certain matters and only those matters. To this day, it remains unlawful to deploy the US Army to act against anyone within the territories of these states; although that has often been overlooked and violated through various loopholes, much as the Second Amendamnet has been repeatedly violated---hence the reason there are national guard and state militia units to this day.

Bob Riebe

11th January 2011, 00:13

I intend to apply for a firearms licence in the near future for a hunting rifle, we have plenty wild deer round here, it would be wasteful not to use the readily available food resources. That said, Im pretty much in the same boat as Daniel, I dont understand why anyone would ever need an automatic assault rifle that some US states allow.

I do understand why you guys on the other side of the pond feel safer with a loaded firearm in your possesion. Its most likely too far gone now but if firearms had been as tightly controlled as here in the UK I believe you wouldn't feel the need to own a firearm merely for your own personal protection, lets not forget that the recent shootings in the US were by a legally bought semi-auto handgun.

Just my take..
Five years ago, when through a firearms forums, I spoke fairly often with a gunsmith in Sweden, there- if- one qualified for a hunting rifle, one also qualified to own a full-auto weapon. They were both considered merely rifles.

He had several sub-machine guns.

Owning a hand-gun, made one jump through more hoops, but were not that hard to get.
Now that was five years ago, and that forum is gone, so I do not know is sanity still rules there.

markabilly

11th January 2011, 00:20

This is not meant to be an inflammatory question, but if you had to use your gun and shot dead another human I wonder how you (I/we) would feel in the immediate aftermath and long term. Is it too easy to simply justify it as an inevitability in that situation? Would any remorse surface? Should I or Shouldn't I have fired? I guess it depends on our individual psychological make up. Maybe sit back for a minute a think about it. If I had a gun and I had to protect my family then of course I would. I wouldn't feel good about it. Not for one moment.

Given the choice between me and them or them and my family, no remorse that I should not have done it, just a wish it had never come to be coupled with the relief of knowing it is not me or family that has been wounded or dead with just a numbness as to all other feelings

markabilly

11th January 2011, 00:23

...... Likewise, many who are in favour in countries like the UK of being able to own and use firearms more freely would probably baulk at actually shooting someone dead, whether out of self-defence or otherwise.
of course, one tends to hesistate as that is the difference between a sociopath serial killer and someone more normal.

Still waiting for those answers

Bob Riebe

11th January 2011, 00:24

Bollocks.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

An amendment to something at law still deals with the same contents as the rest of that same law. "The State" in the Second Amendment is the same entity, ie "The State" which is the United States.
It is after all the United States Constitution.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

It says a militia being necessary...the right of the PEOPLE- not a militia- shall not be infringed.
It says nothing about forming a militia, but it states that if one is necessary.

Bob Riebe

11th January 2011, 00:25

BDunnell

11th January 2011, 00:29

of course, one tends to hesistate as that is the difference between a sociopath serial killer and someone more normal.

Still waiting for those answers

To what? I am quite serious when I say I find a lot of your posts very confusing.

BDunnell

11th January 2011, 00:32

All.

Again, I'd say that I simply cannot imagine having a circle of friends who were all gun owners, or living somewhere which was considered so dangerous as to make this advisable. Would you say this was the case?

Bob Riebe

11th January 2011, 00:35

You are clearly not an unintelligent man, so I'm a bit surprised that you didn't realise that this is precisely what I am saying — that the places where you and other gun owners or gun-possession supporters on these forums live are unlikely to genuinely be such lawless hellholes as to require you to possess firearms in order to remain, or even feel, safe.

Of your circle of friends, Bob — and leaving their politics aside — how many are also firearms owners?

All.

The realities of living here, cannot be conveyed with even a speck of accuracy over a two-dimensional sterile form as the inter-net.

Why one such as yourself is fearful of armed people is also a mystery.
Why liberal politicians act as they do is not a question. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Hitler preached fear into his citizens, of x,y or z.
Politicians in Washington can do the same with firearms being a easy target to be made into a bogey-man.

A group, it has been too long and if one wants to find it look it up, I will not waste the time (it was shown on TV here).

Two groups of children were exposed to a firearm on a table. One group had knowledge of firearms from a NRA class for children; the other group knew nothing of firearms.

The result was, when the educated children saw the gun they ran to tell an adult it was there.
The other group picked it up and played with it.
The researchers that ran the study were astounded that those who had been exposed to firearms did not pick it up.

BDunnell

11th January 2011, 00:39

All.

The realities of living here, cannot be conveyed with even a speck of accuracy over a two-dimensional sterile form as the inter-net.

Why one such as yourself is fearful of armed people is also a mystery.
Why liberal politicians act as they do is not a question. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Hitler preached fear into his citizens, of x,y or z.
Politicians in Washington can do the same with firearms being a easy target to made into a bogey-man.

A group, it has been too long and if one wants to find it look it up, I will not waste the time (it was shown on TV here).

Two groups of children were exposed to a firearm on a table. One group had knowledge of firearms from a NRA class for children; the other group knew nothing of firearms.

The result was, when the educated children saw the gun they ran to tell an adult it was there.
The other group picked it up and played with it.
The researchers that ran the study were astounded that those who had been exposed to firearms did not pick it up.

Why am I fearful of armed people? I am not, per se. I am not actually fearful of anything much, except things like heights, aggressive dogs and so on. I just feel that the possession of weapons is unnecessary. And why is it so difficult for you to 'convey' the 'realities of living here... with even a speck of accuracy over a two-dimensional sterile form as the inter-net'? What, exactly, is so special about where you live? I am able to say over this two-dimensional form that I have never lived anywhere where firearms would be considered necessary, nor even desirable, by the majority of the population. What is different for you?

Oh, and any mention of Hitler in seeking to deploy an argument immediately invalidates it in the eyes of many. It's quite a desperate measure. You were aware of that, weren't you?

Bob Riebe

11th January 2011, 00:42

Again, I'd say that I simply cannot imagine having a circle of friends who were all gun owners, or living somewhere which was considered so dangerous as to make this advisable. Would you say this was the case?
Most of the firearms are not dedicated for self-defense.

In my home town, of less than ten thousand at the time, when a block from where my mother lived, two people were murdered in a Latino drug gang affair, those who did not have a weapon for self defense, acquired one.
(For what it is worth, the two people murdered, a man and a women, were both beaten to death.)

BDunnell

11th January 2011, 00:47

Most of the firearms are not dedicated for self-defense.

In which case, what are they dedicated to? The upholding of rights — or, as it's otherwise known, the 'because I can' argument?

In my home town, of less than ten thousand at the time, when a block from where my mother lived, two people were murdered in a Latino drug gang affair, those who did not have weapon for self defense, acquired one.
(For what it is worth, the two people murdered, a man and a women, were both beaten to death.)

A very sad case, undoubtedly, but still the probabilities of one being directly caught up in something are negligible, surely? There was a stabbing in a shop in my small home town in the UK some years ago, so these things will happen. The probability of it happening to you remains very low — certainly not high enough to force me to take precautions to protect myself. Would you suggest that this makes me unduly cavalier? I wouldn't.

schmenke

11th January 2011, 00:48

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

It says a militia being necessary...the right of the PEOPLE- not a militia- shall not be infringed.
It says nothing about forming a militia, but it states that if one is necessary.

In 1790 the means for rapid mobilisation of a militia army may have seemed a reasonable precaution.
Is it today?

markabilly

11th January 2011, 00:53

To what? I am quite serious when I say I find a lot of your posts very confusing.

yeah, for YOU and others like you, I would think it would be very difficult and confusing to have to answer those questions:

The question is what side of the wire will you end up, inside or a guard on the outside, when another Hitler or some other tryrant pops up again?

I will end up free or dead.

The better question would be how much time have you spent at the ruins of Buchenwald and other concentration camps, and wondered what would it ultimately take to stop such a thing and just what would you do?

and the only immunity from that happenning in Europe has been the USA.
And when the USA is no longer a superpower, much to the delight of many a european, and no longer guardian of those freedoms you currently enjoy, who will assume that role when the big russian bear gets hungry again or some tyrant shows up in your front doorstep?

No, my money says you all will be back down, crawling on your knees again :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by markabilly http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=877162#post877162)
still trying to avoid the truth, heh?

Only been there a little, but I have seen the scars on my father, cousin, and several now deceased uncles, from bullets and bombs. Spent more time in Russia and wondering about Putin

The better question would be how much time have you spent at the ruins of Buchenwald and other concentration camps, and wondered what would it ultimately take to stop such a thing and just what would you do?

Chamberlain, "peace in our time", will get sooner or later get you nowhere but there :rolleyes:

Like I said:

Originally Posted by markabilly http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=877165#post877165)
and the only immunity from that happenning in Europe has been the USA.
And when the USA is no longer a superpower, much to the delight of many a european, and no longer guardian of those freedoms you currently enjoy, who will assume that role when the big russian bear gets hungry again or some tyrant shows up in your front doorstep?

No, my money says you all will be back down, crawling on your knees again :rolleyes:

If you have not been there, now would be a good time to go to what is left....if not there, then there are some other camp museums you could visit, esp. with the cold weather where you can feel the cold and imagine what it must have been like, to be there starving and shivering in the cold, and ponder those very questions

Bob Riebe

11th January 2011, 00:55

Why am I fearful of armed people? I am not, per se. I am not actually fearful of anything much, except things like heights, aggressive dogs and so on. I just feel that the possession of weapons is unnecessary. And why is it so difficult for you to 'convey' the 'realities of living here... with even a speck of accuracy over a two-dimensional sterile form as the inter-net'? What, exactly, is so special about where you live? I am able to say over this two-dimensional form that I have never lived anywhere where firearms would be considered necessary, nor even desirable, by the majority of the population. What is different for you?

Oh, and any mention of Hitler in seeking to deploy an argument immediately invalidates it in the eyes of many. It's quite a desperate measure. You were aware of that, weren't you?
No, Hitler and the German people are not one entity, very different in psychological make-up probably.

Hitler was a simply a politician before any other events occured.

That- politician- took a country to a war that killed an enormous number of Germans because of the- political- speeches he made.

If one mentions Hitler but another only thinks of the Jews and death camps, the other is being too narrow minded, or predisposed in scope.

The effectiveness through words, of Hitler or any other eventual less than desirable politician, to gain power and cause a populace to follow, should not be ignored but emphasized.

markabilly

11th January 2011, 00:56

I

A very sad case, undoubtedly, but still the probabilities of one being directly caught up in something are negligible, surely? There was a stabbing in a shop in my small home town in the UK some years ago, so these things will happen. The probability of it happening to you remains very low — certainly not high enough to force me to take precautions to protect myself. Would you suggest that this makes me unduly cavalier? I wouldn't.
I would suggest that it makes you a person who is willing to crawl on their knees and must depend upon others to stand up for you.

I guess that answers the questions, huh

Bob Riebe

11th January 2011, 00:56

In 1790 the means for rapid mobilisation of a militia army may have seemed a reasonable precaution.
Is it today?
Why would it be not?

BDunnell

11th January 2011, 01:00

The effectiveness through words, of Hitler or any other eventual less than desirable politician, to gain power and cause a populace to follow, should not be ignored but emphasized.

Words are largely how any politician comes to power, and it has been so for as long as their words have been reported. The politicians you support will be no different. Likewise, words can cause politicians to lose power. I don't think the point you make here has any relevance to the debate.

Bob Riebe

11th January 2011, 01:01

In which case, what are they dedicated to? The upholding of rights — or, as it's otherwise known, the 'because I can' argument?

They would be dedicated to what ever the owner wants.
Some, including my self, have collected guns as one would other items. Sometimes it is simply going to the range and to see how different makes of firearms differ in function.
Some also collect cartridges, much as some collect stamps. A problem with this is the temptation to take the collector cartridges to the range and see how the old ones were in performance. Unless you have more than one, which can be expensive, one then finds out how the collector cartridge the one no longer has performs.

A very sad case, undoubtedly, but still the probabilities of one being directly caught up in something are negligible, surely? There was a stabbing in a shop in my small home town in the UK some years ago, so these things will happen. The probability of it happening to you remains very low — certainly not high enough to force me to take precautions to protect myself. Would you suggest that this makes me unduly cavalier? I wouldn't.

No, it is not about forcing one to arm one's self. It is about not forcing one to disarm one's self by government decree.

As the old saying goes- you pays your money (or does not pays) and you takes your chances.

markabilly

11th January 2011, 01:02

In 1790 the means for rapid mobilisation of a militia army may have seemed a reasonable precaution.
Is it today?
the issues of a militia and such were already answered in the body of the constitution.

The bill of rights deals with individual rights against government control. It includes many other such rights, such as freedom of speech and so forth. The most important was freedom of speech and religion. The second was the right to have arms. So sayeth, Jmaes Mdision, who proposed and wrote the Second Amendment

The right to keep and bear arms is absolute.
Its justification among many others, was that there were state and local militias.

It should be noted that in the many publications and justification for this right to keep and bear arms, that were given at the time of its adoption, dealt with personal self defense against criminals as well as

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil procedures

Indeed, James madision, a founding father who wrote the second amendment, expressed it as a human right, necessary to guard one's person from criminals and to assure people that they never should fear their government, unlike with the despots who ruled Europe who had assurred themselves of a dis-armed citzenry

BDunnell

11th January 2011, 01:04

yeah, for YOU and others like you, I would think it would be very difficult and confusing to have to answer those questions:

The question is what side of the wire will you end up, inside or a guard on the outside, when another Hitler or some other tryrant pops up again?

I will end up free or dead.

The better question would be how much time have you spent at the ruins of Buchenwald and other concentration camps, and wondered what would it ultimately take to stop such a thing and just what would you do?

and the only immunity from that happenning in Europe has been the USA.
And when the USA is no longer a superpower, much to the delight of many a european, and no longer guardian of those freedoms you currently enjoy, who will assume that role when the big russian bear gets hungry again or some tyrant shows up in your front doorstep?

No, my money says you all will be back down, crawling on your knees again :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by markabilly http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=877162#post877162)
still trying to avoid the truth, heh?

Only been there a little, but I have seen the scars on my father, cousin, and several now deceased uncles, from bullets and bombs. Spent more time in Russia and wondering about Putin

The better question would be how much time have you spent at the ruins of Buchenwald and other concentration camps, and wondered what would it ultimately take to stop such a thing and just what would you do?

Chamberlain, "peace in our time", will get sooner or later get you nowhere but there :rolleyes:

Like I said:

Originally Posted by markabilly http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=877165#post877165)
and the only immunity from that happenning in Europe has been the USA.
And when the USA is no longer a superpower, much to the delight of many a european, and no longer guardian of those freedoms you currently enjoy, who will assume that role when the big russian bear gets hungry again or some tyrant shows up in your front doorstep?

No, my money says you all will be back down, crawling on your knees again :rolleyes:

If you have not been there, now would be a good time to go to what is left....if not there, then there are some other camp museums you could visit, esp. with the cold weather where you can feel the cold and imagine what it must have been like, to be there starving and shivering in the cold, and ponder those very questions

It is precisely these meandering, inarticulate, possibly coded rants that make it for me to take you seriously.

Of course I have visited concentration camps. Of course the experience is deeply chilling. But I have sufficient confidence in the people of the Western European nations with which I am most familiar that this does not bring thoughts of the same happening again. You, on the other hand, seem to have a terminal lack of confidence in the ability of everybody except those who share your narrow, xenophobic worldview to come to sensible decisions and take sensible actions. Why is this?

Rollo

11th January 2011, 01:09

In 1790 the means for rapid mobilisation of a militia army may have seemed a reasonable precaution.
Is it today?

Apparently the US Military must be so hideously incompetent that the people back home still feel the need to raise militia.

markabilly

11th January 2011, 01:15

But I have sufficient confidence in the people of the Western European nations with which I am most familiar that this does not bring thoughts of the same happening again. You, on the other hand, seem to have a terminal lack of confidence in the ability of everybody except those who share your narrow, xenophobic worldview to come to sensible decisions and take sensible actions. Why is this?
because I have learned the lessons of history, unlike you and "peace in my time" Chamberlain.

You may have visited, but you have not learned their lessons

so I guess then that the answer remains: you will be crawling on the knees........

Bob Riebe

11th January 2011, 01:16

Likewise, words can cause politicians to lose power.

Only in a free society.
Have the words of any dictator, who used words to come to power, caused said same to lose power.

The point was the power of words, as used by politicians, to cause undesirable circumstances.
If you thought I chose a bad sample so be it. The point was made.

This is off topic.

BDunnell

11th January 2011, 01:19

because I have learned the lessons of history, unlike you and "peace in my time" Chamberlain.

You may have visited, but you have not learned their lessons

so I guess then that the answer remains: you will be crawling on the knees........

Oh, for goodness' sake. You make anthonyvop look like a paragon of good sense.

markabilly

11th January 2011, 01:19

because I have learned the lessons of history, unlike you and "peace in my time" Chamberlain.

You may have visited, but you have not learned their lessons

so I guess then that the answer remains: you will be crawling on the knees........
and it is for that reason that i regret the loss of american lives to save ingrates who lack the backbone to stand up for themselves. Indeed, George Washington was so very right.

BDunnell

11th January 2011, 01:20

This is off topic.

Indeed, so quite why Hitler got brought into the discussion — first, I believe, by a fellow American right-winger on the grounds that in living in Berlin I therefore reside in an appalling hell-hole — I have no idea.

Bob Riebe

11th January 2011, 01:21

Apparently the US Military must be so hideously incompetent that the people back home still feel the need to raise militia.
You are speaking foolishness.

The topic of this thread is firearms, not militias.

markabilly

11th January 2011, 01:21

Oh, for goodness' sake. You make anthonyvop look like a paragon of good sense.
actually comparing him to you, I was thinking you made vpop look like the paragon of good sense.... :rolleyes:

Sad how it is that you still do not get the obvious truth and remain so confused by your own blindness

anthonyvop

11th January 2011, 05:29

But I have sufficient confidence in the people of the Western European nations with which I am most familiar that this does not bring thoughts of the same happening again.

That was what they thought after WW1.

Frankly the lack of the basic Freedom of Speech and expression in many European countries disgusts me!!! Centuries of war and subjugation haven't taught you guys anything.

anthonyvop

11th January 2011, 05:33

Really? Any weapon? Even a .30 cal machinegun?

Why not?
It is just a gun.

A really fun but expensive gun to shoot but still a gun.

555-04Q2

11th January 2011, 06:21

Goodness knows what sort of lawless hellholes you and the others here advocating gun ownership in the name of personal security must live in. Most of us in Europe seem to manage without.

South Africa was a safe country, until the ANC took over. Now we are the murder, rape and corruption capital of the world. Until you have had a gang of 6 men breaking into your house at 2 am in the morning with the intention of killing you, gang raping your wife and putting your 12 month baby in the microwave, don't comment on managing without guns. Guns saved me and my family, and put 4 fu@kers 6 feet under.

Daniel

11th January 2011, 20:15

Even on firearm forums, when some one asks that, the response is under-whelming.
There is no point in listing on a public forum any such information.

People may discuss the particulars of a particular firearm for serious reasons but otherwise such information is usually only exchanged in private communications.

Fair enough :) I didn't realise that it wasn't something firearms owners didn't talk about.

Still, what sort of guns do you feel that people shouldn't be allowed to own? Surely there's a point at which something is suitable for self defence or hunting and just becomes ridiculously overpowered?

Daniel

11th January 2011, 20:16

South Africa was a safe country, until the ANC took over. Now we are the murder, rape and corruption capital of the world. Until you have had a gang of 6 men breaking into your house at 2 am in the morning with the intention of killing you, gang raping your wife and putting your 12 month baby in the microwave, don't comment on managing without guns. Guns saved me and my family, and put 4 fu@kers 6 feet under.

Lets be honest, South Africa has never been completely safe. Yes it has become far worse since the ANC took power but it was always a lot less safe than the rest of the world.

BDunnell

12th January 2011, 00:15

That was what they thought after WW1.

Frankly the lack of the basic Freedom of Speech and expression in many European countries disgusts me!!! Centuries of war and subjugation haven't taught you guys anything.

Please tell me what it is you think I, for example, have been prevented from saying by this lack of freedom of speech. I'm dying to know.

BDunnell

12th January 2011, 00:16

South Africa was a safe country, until the ANC took over. Now we are the murder, rape and corruption capital of the world. Until you have had a gang of 6 men breaking into your house at 2 am in the morning with the intention of killing you, gang raping your wife and putting your 12 month baby in the microwave, don't comment on managing without guns. Guns saved me and my family, and put 4 fu@kers 6 feet under.

So it is all the fault of a political party rather than individuals themselves? I would have thought that you, as a right-winger, would believe in personal responsibility rather than farming the blame out.

BDunnell

12th January 2011, 00:17

actually comparing him to you, I was thinking you made vpop look like the paragon of good sense.... :rolleyes:

Sad how it is that you still do not get the obvious truth and remain so confused by your own blindness

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

Daniel

12th January 2011, 00:36

So it is all the fault of a political party rather than individuals themselves? I would have thought that you, as a right-winger, would believe in personal responsibility rather than farming the blame out.
To be fair the ANC are a huge part of what's wrong with South Africa. They promised everything and have delivered little.

markabilly

12th January 2011, 14:59

Please tell me what it is you think I, for example, have been prevented from saying by this lack of freedom of speech. I'm dying to know.

So it is all the fault of a political party rather than individuals themselves? I would have thought that you, as a right-winger, would believe in personal responsibility rather than farming the blame out.

markabilly, I am sorry, but your posts strike me increasingly as being the ramblings of an ill mind.
You are such a recreant in your trolling, one who refuses to impose any individual responsibilty on yourself and others to stand up, and quite content to crawl upon your knees and depend upon the mercy of others to protect you. Worse, you condemn others for having the courage to do that for which you are most fearful.

Indeed, it is clear that you are so afraid, you will not provide open and honest answers to my questions, for fear of exposing your lack of a backbone.

You even engage in name calling, not straight up and end your face as one who had backbone, but in such a manner consistent with this fear as to be most pusillanimous in your attempts to provoke.

And what brings tears to my eyes, is to know how many brave americans paid and continue to pay the price for you to freeload. This price that permits you to have this freedom and safety for which you show your lack of gratitude by using to condemn those who have kept and continue to keep you safe.

Not even possessing the good manners to give a less than honest thank you.....

and of course, your response will be to lie and say I can not understand you, you must have an ill mind and other mumblings :rotflmao:

ArrowsFA1

12th January 2011, 15:45

janvanvurpa

12th January 2011, 15:56

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.....

Sure they can, Daniel.
They use historical points and draw completely unrelated conclusions with nary a nod to reality.
Just look at the truly insane endless repetition of the flat statement that citizens owning all kinds of guns---most often small pistols and shotguns and some rifles---- has been the decisive thing in preventing "politicians", the elected legal representitives in city, state and National government, from disarming them.
To any sane person, this implies that thatr "the Government" has not "diarmed' them only becuase of the threat to theor lives from gun-owners.

Which of course is insane.

No can a huge portion of the US population be really clinically insane?
mo, obviously
So why do these people repeat nearly reflexively this nonsense with it's implied threat?

Because it's just a phrase, a whole line of thinking---if you can call it thinking---that the never bothered to think about. They repeat things without ever wondering if they could be mistaken, an alternative, no doubt ever enters their limited minds.

Just look at their dragging up and throwing in the face the whole presumption that "we" saved all "you" when "you" were "on your knees" (as silly as it is to put all the words in quotes, it is needed to clearly indicate what I write is quoting them.) 70 or 90 years ago.

That's ahistoric, and yet amongst those with the same myopia bordering on dyslexia, the repetition of this "We saved you in World War_____" has only become more frequent, more vehement and more simplistic in the last 30 years.

So its clear that for many Americans, they can, and often do use words and refer to actual events and imply things to mean their own personal and peculiar and unine meanings, and you and the entire rest of the world are retarded, weak, on your knees, probably sub-human and a bloody pom pooftie if you don't accept their unique usage or view of meaning of events, that's what is meant by Freedom™.

Some might conclude that they are exercising their freedom from reflection, wonder, indeed anything resembling thought........but surely I couldn't comment.

janvanvurpa

12th January 2011, 16:07

And what brings tears to my eyes, is to know how many brave americans paid and continue to pay the price for you to freeload. This price that permits you to have this freedom and safety for which you show your lack of gratitude by using to condemn those who have kept and continue to keep you safe.

Not even possessing the good manners to give a less than honest thank you.....

and of course, your response will be to lie and say I can not understand you, you must have an ill mind and other mumblings :rotflmao:

Hey you, wipe the tears from your eyes and show some respect to the fallen.
That requires you to capitalise the word Americans instead of of being so lazy and sloppy. It is flat disrespectful.

And I know this is an enormous stretch for you but could you just ponder the thought for a second that maybe it was the 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 soldiers of our Allies who gave their lives and killed 85-88% of all the "Bad Guys" that assured your ancestors liberty, rather than the 292,000 Americans who fell in combat who saved the whole world...

Try to wrestle with the idea...

Retro Formula 1

12th January 2011, 16:30

janvanvurpa

12th January 2011, 16:47

WWII killed millions of people and we could all do without the "we lost more than you did :p " bullsh*t, so can we get back to discussing the thread and stop disgracing the fallen, whatever nationality they were.

You may be missing the nuances in the above which is basically if people are totally illogical and assert facts unconnected with the simple historical record, then they can believe-and unfortunately repeat----anything.

Somebody, Voltaire i think said "Those that can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities".

ArrowsFA1

12th January 2011, 17:19

Somebody, Voltaire i think said "Those that can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities".
Which does bring us neatly back to the topic of the thread :s mokin:

anthonyvop

12th January 2011, 17:46

Please tell me what it is you think I, for example, have been prevented from saying by this lack of freedom of speech. I'm dying to know.

As I have said before.

Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular talk and ideas. It is to protect unpopular ones.

anthonyvop

12th January 2011, 17:49

Fla. jogger won't be charged for shooting teen

Published January 12, 2011
Associated Press

TAMPA, Fla. – A pistol-packing jogger in Florida won't be charged for shooting and killing a teenager who attacked him during a midnight run.

Prosecutors said Tuesday they are convinced Thomas Baker acted in self defense when he fired eight shots at 18-year-old Carlos Mustelier near Tampa in November .

Prosecutors say Florida's "stand-your-ground" law was a factor in their decision. The law, passed in 2005, gives people the right to use deadly force as long as they "reasonably believe" it is necessary to stop another person from hurting them.

Baker told police he reached for his gun when the teen punched him in the face. Baker has a concealed weapons permit.

The teen was hit four times in the chest, back and buttocks. He died at the scene.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/12/fla-jogger-wont-charged-shooting-teen/#ixzz1AqCryStb

Dave B

12th January 2011, 17:56

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/12/fla-jogger-wont-charged-shooting-teen/#ixzz1AqCryStb
So shooting an unarmed teenager four times is considered a proportional and "reasonable" response to being punched in the face?

Words fail me.

Bob Riebe

12th January 2011, 18:47

So shooting an unarmed teenager four times is considered a proportional and "reasonable" response to being punched in the face?

Words fail me.
Yes.
This isn't a Hollywood farce where the good guy lets the bad guy draw first.
That gets victims killed.

Your concern for the criminal is noted.

Mark

12th January 2011, 18:55

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

Bob Riebe

12th January 2011, 19:43

Doesn't matter how you dress it up. Killing someone for punching you in the face is murder.
No, it is self-defense.
It is simply asininely stupid to imply the shooter is supposed to wait until greater bodily harm is suffered before defending himself.

Of course any sympathy for the criminal can only be called asininely stupid.

anthonyvop

12th January 2011, 19:53

So shooting an unarmed teenager four times is considered a proportional and "reasonable" response to being punched in the face?

Words fail me.

So being punched in the face with the knowledge that you can be killed is something that you have no right to defend yourself from?

anthonyvop

12th January 2011, 19:56

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

How is that?

A stranger from out of nowhere attacks you. He punches you in the face. You have every reason to believe that he will continue to attack you causing you grave bodily harm or even KILL YOU.

So you defend yourself. How the hell is that murder?

ArrowsFA1

12th January 2011, 20:07

No, it is self-defense.
There's no element of proportional defence where guns are concerned. Guns give the holder the opportunity to take the ultimate retribution "just in case".

In a society where gun possession is the norm that attitude is understandable, but in one where it is not the idea that a punch in the face warrants death it is incomprehensible.

A similar argument applies to nuclear weapons. If one side has them the other has to, and if one uses them the other has to. It's a downward spiral.

markabilly

12th January 2011, 20:16

Hey you, wipe the tears from your eyes and show some respect to the fallen.
That requires you to capitalise the word Americans instead of of being so lazy and sloppy. It is flat disrespectful.

And I know this is an enormous stretch for you but could you just ponder the thought for a second that maybe it was the 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 soldiers of our Allies who gave their lives and killed 85-88% of all the "Bad Guys" that assured your ancestors liberty, rather than the 292,000 Americans who fell in combat who saved the whole world...

Try to wrestle with the idea...
I do not need to pay my respects by using a capital letter...I paid my dues direct, although many more paid a far higher price.

And then whinng about matters of form rather than substance, you go on to bash this country by trying to minimize its contribution. :rolleyes:

One life to keep you ingrates warm and secure, was one life far too many!!

Bob Riebe

12th January 2011, 20:17

There's no element of proportional defence where guns are concerned. Guns give the holder the opportunity to take the ultimate retribution "just in case".

In a society where gun possession is the norm that attitude is understandable, but in one where it is not the idea that a punch in the face warrants death it is incomprehensible.

A similar argument applies to nuclear weapons. If one side has them the other has to, and if one uses them the other has to. It's a downward spiral.

There is no analogy between nuclear arms and firearms. They are two different worlds.
That is a grasping at straws defense of which you are not the first to use, perhaps because as you said, they are dealing with something of which they know nothing for fact.

markabilly

12th January 2011, 20:19

So shooting an unarmed teenager four times is considered a proportional and "reasonable" response to being punched in the face?

Words fail me.

Let me help you out- just call it poor shooting skills as one shot, one kill should always be the goal. Anything more is just wasting good ammo.
:D

Rollo

12th January 2011, 20:21

A stranger from out of nowhere attacks you. He punches you in the face. You have every reason to believe that he will continue to attack you causing you grave bodily harm or even KILL YOU.

So you defend yourself. How the hell is that murder?

Pray tell why does the attacker have the ability to causing you grave bodily harm or even kill you in the first place? The same right which gives you the ability to carry a gun to defend your house, also creates the conditions that also arm the attacker.

Dave B

12th January 2011, 20:26

Yes.
This isn't a Hollywood farce where the good guy lets the bad guy draw first.
That gets victims killed.

Your concern for the criminal is noted.
I actually have less concern for the dead guy than you might think. If he was comitting a crime then a civilised society would put him on trial, hear both sides, then decide on a fair punishment. You simply don't have that when one person acts as judge, jury and (quite literally) executioner.

If the USA truly does allow murder as self-defence then I'm afraid you have lost any moral right you may have once had to tell other countries how they should conduct themselves.

Bob Riebe

12th January 2011, 20:27

=

And I know this is an enormous stretch for you but could you just ponder the thought for a second that maybe it was the 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 soldiers of our Allies who gave their lives and killed 85-88% of all the "Bad Guys" that assured your ancestors liberty, rather than the 292,000 Americans who fell in combat who saved the whole world...

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other ******* die for his.
George S. Patton, Jr.

Bob Riebe

12th January 2011, 20:30

I actually have less concern for the dead guy than you might think. If he was comitting a crime then a civilised society would put him on trial, hear both sides, then decide on a fair punishment.

This happens often, during which time, the family of the victim attends his/her funeral because the victim did not have the option to murder the criminal.

As I said your concern for the criminal is telling.

markabilly

12th January 2011, 20:31

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

For sure, in England, it most certainly is.

There was a time when it would not have been. My, how low the once proud mighty have fallen.

Just ask Mr. Martin who had barricaded himself inside his house to in a futile attempt try to unsuccessfully stop repeated burlgaries.......when he finally took arms against these poor misguided souls who knew not what they were doing (happy now Daniel), they both got froggy and he shot them with an unregistered shotgun.

In earlier times in merry old england, the surviving misguided soul would have been promptly tried and hung

So they convict him of murder.......
that is one of many things as to what is wrong with the firearm laws in england

Dave B

12th January 2011, 20:34

For sure, in England, it most certainly is.

There was a time when it would not have been. My, how low the once proud mighty have fallen.

Just ask Mr. Martin who had barricaded himself inside his house to in a futile attempt try to unsuccessfully stop repeated burlgaries.......when he finally took arms against these poor misguided souls who knew not what they were doing (happy now Daniel), they both got froggy and he shot them with an unregistered shotgun.

So they convict him of murder.......
that is one of many things as to what is wrong with the firearm laws in england
My reply to your gibberish got lost in the server move.

Tony Martin was an unstable nutjob who should never have been issued with a gun licence in the first place. It was revoked when he shot at a fleeing vehicle (and you'll see a pattern in this brave man's behaviour).

He later used an illegally held shotgun to shoot and unarmed and fleeing teenager in the back. The fact that you hold him up as some sort of hero is, frankly, disturbing.

I should add here, as you and Bob seem to have difficulty understanding this crucial nuance, that I don't have sympathy for the burglar. As with Bob's example of the Florida mugger, the burglar should have faced fair trial and been punished accordingly. A mentally disturbed farmer acting as judge, jury and executioner is no way to mete out justice.

Bob Riebe

12th January 2011, 20:36

Pray tell why does the attacker have the ability to causing you grave bodily harm or even kill you in the first place? The same right which gives you the ability to carry a gun to defend your house, also creates the conditions that also arm the attacker.
That is a Straw-man argument.

Criminals have no rights.
The Right to bear arms, has nothing to do with the armed criminal sector.
Liberal laws have much to do with the disarmed non-criminal sector.

Jag_Warrior

12th January 2011, 20:38

If Thomas Baker had been a karate expert and had snapped this thug's neck, would that have been any better?

I strongly disagree with the belief that the victim of a violent crime is supposed to give the criminal the benefit of the doubt, as to whether or not this person will kill or maim them. The bottomline is, you shouldn't go around punching people in the face, and you don't have to worry about what lengths your victim might go to in defending themselves.

I don't carry a concealed weapon any longer. But if someone runs up and punches me in the face, my counter punch might (luckily) catch him in the throat, collapsing his windpipe. He might die. Maybe I'm 4 inches taller and 50 pounds heavier than the person. Maybe I could run faster than him. Maybe, maybe, maybe. But the fact remains, if not for his own violent actions, I would not have done what I did. More and more states are passing "castle doctrines" and laws like what Florida has. As our society becomes more and more infected by a predatory criminal element, seeking to prey on the weak and (seemingly ;) ) defenseless, legislatures are (finally) making sure that decent people don't have to hide under their beds at night, while criminals walk around as if they own the world.

Anyway, I doubt that Thomas Baker was the first person that Carlos Mustelier attacked... but I'm 100% certain that he will be the last. Sounds like a story with a happy ending, IMO. :D

Dave B

12th January 2011, 20:38

As I said your concern for the criminal is telling.
Telling of what, exactly. If you're claiming to read minds at least have the decency to say what it is you believe you can tell from second-guessing my comments.

markabilly

12th January 2011, 20:43

My reply to your gibberish got lost in the server move.

Tony Martin was an unstable nutjob who should never have been issued with a gun licence in the first place. It was revoked when he shot at a fleeing vehicle (and you'll see a pattern in this brave man's behaviour).

He later used an illegally held shotgun to shoot and unarmed and fleeing teenager in the back. The fact that you hold him up as some sort of hero is, frankly, disturbing.

I should add here, as you and Bob seem to have difficulty understanding this crucial nuance, that I don't have sympathy for the burglar. As with Bob's example of the Florida mugger, the burglar should have faced fair trial and been punished accordingly. A mentally disturbed farmer acting as judge, jury and executioner is no way to mete out justice.

Sure, and when the law fails to act as in this case after repeated abuses, then real men have no choice. Cowards just continue to crawl on their knees.

The vehicle was "fleeing" from the scene of another crime committed against the man, a crime that was never properly investigated, no trial, no nothing.

Just like all the rest of criminal acts that the man was required to endure until justice was served on the scum.

Bob Riebe

12th January 2011, 20:47

Telling of what, exactly. If you're claiming to read minds at least have the decency to say what it is you believe you can tell from second-guessing my comments.

You have a disdain for firearms and vitriolic disdain for those who actually use them to defend themselves, without regards to any possible reality faced by the victims.
At the same time you cater to an illogical sympathy for criminals over those against whom they perform crimes.

Your rhetoric speaks volumes.

Jag_Warrior

12th January 2011, 20:48

I actually have less concern for the dead guy than you might think. If he was comitting a crime then a civilised society would put him on trial, hear both sides, then decide on a fair punishment. You simply don't have that when one person acts as judge, jury and (quite literally) executioner.

If the USA truly does allow murder as self-defence then I'm afraid you have lost any moral right you may have once had to tell other countries how they should conduct themselves.

But Dave, you seem to be going on the assumption that the criminal will not kill, mortally wound or permanently maim his victim. So yes, he would stand trial (assuming he was caught), if every victim took the "what will be, will be" approach. But the problem is, the eye witness (the victim) might be in a casket by the time the trial takes place.

How is a victim supposed to know what an attacker is going to do to him/her? There are clearly cultural differences which are causing some of you to refer to a killing in self-defense as "murder". In your cultures and within your legal systems, perhaps it is murder. But here, it is not.

ArrowsFA1

12th January 2011, 21:00

There is no analogy between nuclear arms and firearms. They are two different worlds.
They're not that different Bob. If one side (nation or individual) has a weapon then the other wants one "just in case" they have to defend themselves.

schmenke

12th January 2011, 21:05

.... More and more states are passing "castle doctrines" and laws like what Florida has. As our society becomes more and more infected by a predatory criminal element, seeking to prey on the weak and (seemingly ;) ) defenseless, legislatures are (finally) making sure that decent people don't have to hide under their beds at night, while criminals walk around as if they own the world....

No they are not. Laws enacted like the ones in Florida are only knee-jerk, band-aid solutions that exasperate the larger social problems. It's short-term, narrow-minded thinking that results in the attitude "To counter the abundance of criminals in society we’ll arm the citizens.”
Is anyone not asking “Why has our society become more and more infected by a predatory criminal element, and what can be done to alleviate it?”

Bob Riebe

12th January 2011, 21:06

They're not that different Bob. If one side (nation or individual) has a weapon then the other wants one "just in case" they have to defend themselves.
That would apply to armies, in total.

IF, it were tit-for-tat, Russia would have a carrier fleet, the U.K. would still have a long range bomber force, etc.

Bob Riebe

12th January 2011, 21:13

No they are not. Laws enacted like the ones in Florida are only knee-jerk, band-aid solutions that exasperate the larger social problems. It's short-term, narrow-minded thinking that results in the attitude "To counter the abundance of criminals in society we’ll arm the citizens.”
Is anyone not asking “Why has our society become more and more infected by a predatory criminal element, and what can be done to alleviate it?”

Not really, liberal lawyers (and I do not mean lawyers that deal with people jailed for crimes they did not commit) and the ACLU spend huge amounts of time trying to get criminals more rights, and punishing harshly law official who, in their opinion, are not treating criminal well enough.

In the past year, border patrol agents were imprisoned for shooting a illegal alien criminal in the buttocks, while a person supposedly serving a life sentence is released on parole and goes on to murder an innocent person.

Yeah, lets pee-and-moan about the death penaly, I mean who gives a **** about the people they commit crimes against.

markabilly

12th January 2011, 21:15

No they are not. Laws enacted like the ones in Florida are only knee-jerk, band-aid solutions that exasperate the larger social problems. It's short-term, narrow-minded thinking that results in the attitude "To counter the abundance of criminals in society we’ll arm the citizens.”
Is anyone not asking “Why has our society become more and more infected by a predatory criminal element, and what can be done to alleviate it?”
the answer is so obvious: It has become such, because there is no willingness to impose strict responsibility and harsh punishment that permanently removes them from access to society.

When caught, and even that has a low probability, they cut a deal and are back out again, to do more harm.

Those two shot by martin were classic examples.....and afterwards, the survivor even continued to break the law, even using GOVERNMENT MONEY to sue Martin for his alleged disabilities, only to be caught doing activities showing that he had perjured himself. Nothing was done except to dismiss the lawsuit.

Eventually, the "little misguided soul", who Martin did not 'execute" even though Martin was in a position to do so after he had been wounded, continued to commit more criminal activities and dope dealing.

But that is the reality you want to ignore

janvanvurpa

12th January 2011, 21:30

I do not need to pay my respects by using a capital letter...I paid my dues direct, although many more paid a far higher price.

And then whinng about matters of form rather than substance, you go on to bash this country by trying to minimize its contribution. :rolleyes:

One life to keep you ingrates warm and secure, was one life far too many!!

Do not put your lousy lies in my words you disgusting dimwit.*
I did not bash or minimize this country: pointing out monumental Big Lies of people like you is of service to this country and our reputation in the world.

You need a rest from your constant trolling and baiting---if only the moderators would moderate.

Now before the Gang of Four come and act all butthurt and say I resort to name calling, you fools should not that this person, and I use that words as contemptuously as I can, has tried to slander me by twisting my words and labeling them as false, and then makes his "one life for you ingrates..."

That is attack.
This is response.

What the developmentally disabled markibil doesn't understand because he has a comic book idea of what America is, is those he can't be troubled to spell correctly died for ME as much as HIM.

Indeed, fully half or more would have recognized in his basic "One way or the highway" an obvious similarity of emotions to "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer " so fundamental is his intolerance of even a suggestion to look at something from any other perspective than the narrow clenched eyes he does...

[slapping forehead]Oi! For this man they died?[/slapping forhead]

markabilly

12th January 2011, 21:45

Do not put your lousy lies in my words you disgusting dimwit.*
I did not bash or minimize this country: pointing out monumental Big Lies of people like you is of service to this country and our reputation in the world.

You need a rest from your constant trolling and baiting---if only the moderators would moderate.

Now before the Gang of Four come and act all butthurt and say I resort to name calling, you fools should not that this person, and I use that words as contemptuously as I can, has tried to slander me by twisting my words and labeling them as false, and then makes his "one life for you ingrates..."

That is attack.
This is response.

What the developmentally disabled markibil doesn't understand because he has a comic book idea of what America is, is those he can't be troubled to spell correctly died for ME as much as HIM.

Indeed, fully half or more would have recognized in his basic "One way or the highway" an obvious similarity of emotions to "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer " so fundamental is his intolerance of even a suggestion to look at something from any other perspective than the narrow clenched eyes he does...

[slapping forehead]Oi! For this man they died?[/slapping forhead]

now that is funny...... :rotflmao:

my "lies into (your) words"....all, i can say, it was real easy. All I had to do was use your words as you said them to point out the obvious, and you now call your own words, "lies"

now that is the best rant of the year so far. :dozey: :up:

anthonyvop

12th January 2011, 21:57

Pray tell why does the attacker have the ability to causing you grave bodily harm or even kill you in the first place? The same right which gives you the ability to carry a gun to defend your house, also creates the conditions that also arm the attacker.

WTF?

Are you seriously stating that the attacker has a right to hurt you because he fears the victim might defend themselves?

Seriously?

anthonyvop

12th January 2011, 22:02

I actually have less concern for the dead guy than you might think. If he was comitting a crime then a civilised society would put him on trial, hear both sides, then decide on a fair punishment. You simply don't have that when one person acts as judge, jury and (quite literally) executioner.

If the USA truly does allow murder as self-defence then I'm afraid you have lost any moral right you may have once had to tell other countries how they should conduct themselves.

So if a guy was to suddenly attack you, punches you in the face and in all probability cause you great bodily harm, permanent injury or even death you would just sit there content and think that it will be OK because if he gets arrested he will have a fair trial?

That just boggles my mind that people think that way.

janvanvurpa

12th January 2011, 22:03

now that is funny...... :rotflmao:

my "lies into (your) words"....all, i can say, it was real easy. All I had to do was use your words as you said them to point out the obvious, and you now call your own words, "lies"

now that is the best rant of the year so far. :dozey: :up:

seek help for your PTSD.
before you go on some rampage.

markabilly

12th January 2011, 22:24

seek help for your PTSD.
before you go on some rampage.
You are right, I better get help, otherwise I might go on a rampage and start calling someone "you disgusting dimwit.*" and "developmentally disabled"
with "an obvious similarity of emotions to "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer " so fundamental is his intolerance" :eek:

I better go right now :dozey:

schmenke

12th January 2011, 22:26

the answer is so obvious: It has become such, because there is no willingness to impose strict responsibility and harsh punishment that permanently removes them from access to society....

That is a reactionary attitude.
I’m referring to progressive, long-term solutions that addresses the reasons that lead to crime in the first place. As I mentioned in a previous post, I don’t begin to have an answer, but a radical attitude change by citizens is a start.

The social problems plaguing communities need to be addressed to reduce crime.

IMO, a few suggestions to prioritize:
Education
Urban planning
Youth mentorship, providing goals and aspirations.
Addressing the increasing financial gap between the wealthy and poor.
Etc.

But of course, these are difficult solutions to investigate and implement, so instead, let's just arm everyone and remove the liability of an individual to discharge a firearm in public :rolleyes:

Rollo

12th January 2011, 22:42

WTF?

Are you seriously stating that the attacker has a right to hurt you because he fears the victim might defend themselves?

Seriously?

No.
I am seriously stating that the attacker has a right to bear arms just like you do. This means that the attacker is legally allowed to be carrying that gun of theirs.

That is a Straw-man argument.

Criminals have no rights.
The Right to bear arms, has nothing to do with the armed criminal sector.
Liberal laws have much to do with the disarmed non-criminal sector.

Firstly you keep on using the term "Straw-man argument", and you do not know what it means. A "straw man" is an informal fallacy which is misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I have not misrepresented anyone else's position.

Secondly, and according to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

An attacker has not had access to any due process of law, therefore your statement that "Criminals have no rights" is a direct lie. No-one; not even United States law, awards criminal status to someone until due process through the courts has taken place; even the wording of the Sixth Amendment affirms this. Even then someone's rights are only taken away by that same process of law.

anthonyvop

12th January 2011, 23:29

No.
I am seriously stating that the attacker has a right to bear arms just like you do. This means that the attacker is legally allowed to be carrying that gun of theirs.

No they don't. By committing a crime the abdicate their right.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The criminal by attacking an innocent person has violated all 3 of these rights and has accepted the fact that their rights are superseded by those of their victim

Secondly, and according to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

An attacker has not had access to any due process of law, therefore your statement that "Criminals have no rights" is a direct lie. No-one; not even United States law, awards criminal status to someone until due process through the courts has taken place; even the wording of the Sixth Amendment affirms this. Even then someone's rights are only taken away by that same process of law.

I refer to my previous statement.

Now my question to you is simple.

Does a person who has every reason to fear for their lives have the right to protect themselves?

schmenke

12th January 2011, 23:37

No they don't. By committing a crime the abdicate their right....

They have not committed a crime until they have had a fair trial (you know, "innocent until proven guilty” and all that…).

ArrowsFA1

12th January 2011, 23:39

So, anthonyvop, if anyone was to suddenly punch you in the face, you'd shoot them?

janvanvurpa

12th January 2011, 23:54

They have not committed a crime until they have had a fair trial (you know, "innocent until proven guilty” and all that…).

[Insane Vop like lunatic voice on] Show me in the Constitution where it says that! [/insane Vop like lunatic voice off]

Petty details getting in the way. pffffft!

(now we see the violence inherent in the system)

ArrowsFA1

12th January 2011, 23:58

No they don't. By committing a crime the abdicate their right.
But up until the point that they commit a crime they are indistinguishable among the 100m (NRA stats) or so people who own a handgun in the US in the eyes of the law.

schmenke

13th January 2011, 00:01

[Insane Vop like lunatic voice on] Show me in the Constitution where it says that! [/insane Vop like lunatic voice off]
...

I believe Rollo posted that in #234 :mark:

Rollo

13th January 2011, 00:49

No they don't. By committing a crime the abdicate their right.

Wrong. There is no such thing as voluntary abdication of rights under the law and there is also no forcible removal of them without due process through the courts. Re-read the Fourteenth Amendment.

I refer to my previous statement.

Now my question to you is simple.

Does a person who has every reason to fear for their lives have the right to protect themselves?

A simple question deserves a simple answer. The answer is: NO

No such "right" exists at law; there is certainly no right for a person to act as jugde and executioner either.

Bob Riebe

13th January 2011, 01:00

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;.

That is a legal statement, about the STATE.
It says the State cannot deprive, legally anyone of the rights without due process.

This is not about the state depriving one's rights. It is about a criminal has NO RIGHT to commit a crime, or be treated as if that crime is a right.

If the criminal is already a convicted felon, he/she should only have the few rights the state gives back. No others.

Bob Riebe

13th January 2011, 01:05

They have not committed a crime until they have had a fair trial (you know, "innocent until proven guilty” and all that…).
That is so wrong, and a bit silly.
You cannot be sentenced for the crime, by the State, or any government, until you have had a trial. The State cannot impose penalties on you until you have been convicted in court.

The one is already guilty of committing a crime, and the victim or those opposing the criminal have full rights to bring to bear any means necessary to legally stop the crime or bring the criminal in.

Bob Riebe

13th January 2011, 01:07

No such "right" exists at law; there is certainly no right for a person to act as jugde and executioner either.

You are wrong.

anthonyvop

13th January 2011, 01:08

Wrong. There is no such thing as voluntary abdication of rights under the law and there is also no forcible removal of them without due process through the courts. Re-read the Fourteenth Amendment.

There are literally 1000's of cases where people voluntarily wave their rights. Happens all the time from waving their right to a trial to giving up parental rights.

It all goes to the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are only limited that in thier exercise you aren't violating the right of others.
If a criminal attempts to harm another person the victim has an inalienable right to defend themselves. The Criminal by violating the rights of the victim is not expressing his legitimate rights and so abdicates any claim of protection.

A simple question deserves a simple answer. The answer is: NO

No such "right" exists at law; there is certainly no right for a person to act as jugde and executioner either.

So if a person breaks into you home with a machete and declares he is going to rape and then kill you and your family you would do nothing?

Rollo

13th January 2011, 01:09

That is a legal statement, about the STATE.
It says the State cannot deprive, legally anyone of the rights without due process.

This is not about the state depriving one's rights. It is about a criminal has NO RIGHT to commit a crime, or be treated as if that crime is a right.

No-one has the right to commit a crime; I've never said that anyone does, in fact quite the opposite on a number of occasions.

Rollo

13th January 2011, 01:25

You are wrong.

Prove it.

Tazio

13th January 2011, 01:26

No such "right" exists at law; there is certainly no right for a person to act as jugde and executioner either.

Unless you are the San Diego Police :dozey:

This guy was blown away for not dropping his walking stick, and the having a police dog threaten him from behind causing him to run forward!

NEWS
Officers Cleared in Shooting of Homeless Man
June 24, 2000 | By TONY PERRY, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Police were justified in using deadly force in the shooting Feb. 8 of a mentally disturbed homeless man armed only with a tree branch, Dist. Atty. Paul Pfingst concluded Friday. But Pfingst suggested that a barking police dog might have contributed to the deadly turn taken by a tense standoff when it startled William Anthony Miller, 42, into running directly at officers. Three officers opened fire, hitting Miller seven times.

The dog's handler had positioned the dog behind Miller rather than behind the officers as suggested by Police Department policy.

"The [police] helicopter videotape shows that Mr. Miller charged the officers approximately 10 seconds after the police dog was taken out of the K-9 car," Pfingst wrote to Chief David Bejarano. " . . . Your department may wish to study whether the positioning of the dog may have hastened Mr. Miller's charge."

Although cleared of possible criminal charges, the officers could still face departmental discipline.

http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2000-February/000197.html

The Feb. 8 shooting of William Anthony Miller, 42, prompted
heavy criticism from residents who questioned whether officers
should have used deadly force. Miller was shot 12 times.
Timothy Winters, a pastor and former San Diego officer,
suggested that training was the key.

``Our police will function at the level of their training. If
all that they have is weapon, a pistol, that's what they'll use,''
Winters said. ``If they're trained to use any other means to
apprehend a subject ... then the whole picture will be changed.''

We have an expression in San Diego.
The Police don't shoot people, they empty their clips into them!

markabilly

13th January 2011, 01:35

So, anthonyvop, if anyone was to suddenly punch you in the face, you'd shoot them?
Dunno about him but i might depending on the circumstances.

And if I were to suddenly punch you in the face, would you shoot me? :eek:

I think not, given your other responses, so how many blows would it take before you quit "turning the other cheek"?

How many blows on any of your loved ones??

markabilly

13th January 2011, 01:58

Firstly you keep on using the term "Straw-man argument", and you do not know what it means. A "straw man" is an informal fallacy which is misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I have not misrepresented anyone else's position.

Secondly, and according to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

An attacker has not had access to any due process of law, therefore your statement that "Criminals have no rights" is a direct lie. No-one; not even United States law, awards criminal status to someone until due process through the courts has taken place; even the wording of the Sixth Amendment affirms this. Even then someone's rights are only taken away by that same process of law.

First I must congratulate on actually reading the consitutution and attempting to understand it. That is more than most judges.

Please note what I have underlined. It says "no State"

The reason it states "no state" is that when the bill of rights (first ten amendments)was originally passed, it was thought to only be applicable to the federal government's actions and not as to any particular state, such as the sunny california which remained free to impose all sorts of discrimination it wished, etc., and limit those rights contained in the Bill of Rights as to actions occurring by and through the State of California. If California wanted to no longer have jury trails and other such things, california was free to do so, until the 14th amendment was passed. Further, the amendment was also passed for reasons related to slavery and discrimination based upon race, and was designed to apply those previously enumerated rights to any governmental action, and not merely to the federal government.

Also note that in order for it to apply, it must involve governmental action. If it does not involve governmental action, then it does not apply.

So me, as a private citizen , is free to violate any of those rights, subject only to certain limitations under federal statutes that relate to economic interstate commerce (ie discrimnation in businesses that somehow involve interstate commerce is illegal, but if a business that had absolutely no impact on interstate commerce were to discrimnate, then there is no violation of federal law). This power is based soley on the "interstate commerce clause" of the constitution.

OTOH, one might wonder about the san diego police actions, as they are subject to the 14th amendment. They are suppose to act reasonably to give them a trial, but I don't got to at all.

So shooting dead most people, is not a federal offense and does not deprive anyone of equal protection of the law.

However, the shooting of the congresswoman and the federal judge, as they are federal officers, would give rise to federal jurisdiction over the defendant.
A good example of the difference between state and federal government is the prohibition against being tried twice for the same crime; however, if the second trial or the first trial occurred in federal court, then as long as the other trial occurred in state court, that constitutional provision is not violated.