<strong>Let me shed some light on this "right to keep and bare arms" issue. This was initiated by our forefathers as a way to guard the private citizens of America against possible tyrannical action by our government (part of the reason our great forefathers left England to begin with)ie: search and seizure of homes without provocation or warrent. This right was granted soley to keep the colonies protected by having the right to form malitia and protect their township.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, but I think the extent to which they're referring to individuals' ability to fight the gov't is debatable. What is clear is that they didn't like the idea of a strong, independent Federal military - they wanted the military to be composed of individual state armies, with citizens from those states supplying their own arms.
But what do we have now? A really strong federal military, and a very small role for state armies (like the national guards). I don't think too many people would argue against this, because of all the smart bombs and nukes that obviously you aren't gonna keep back in the wood shed with your musket.
Let's face it, there just aren't any state militias today like there used to be. This fact makes the Second Amendment barely relevant today, IMO. Which is probably why it has virtually no impact in modern case law.
<strong>Yes, but I think the extent to which they're referring to individuals' ability to fight the gov't is debatable. What is clear is that they didn't like the idea of a strong, independent Federal military - they wanted the military to be composed of individual state armies, with citizens from those states supplying their own arms.
But what do we have now? A really strong federal military, and a very small role for state armies (like the national guards). I don't think too many people would argue against this, because of all the smart bombs and nukes that obviously you aren't gonna keep back in the wood shed with your musket.
Let's face it, there just aren't any state militias today like there used to be. This fact makes the Second Amendment barely relevant today, IMO. Which is probably why it has virtually no impact in modern case law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well why then are there groups in Washington lobbying so hard to remove this right of gun ownership if this amendmant has no merit as you say? If the "right to keep and bare arms" is no more than a catch phrase and has no merit, then why has the federal government not followed suit with England and Australia in the removal of guns from homes? Mind you, these guns were removed house by house and in our modern time. I think there is more weight to this amendment than you think or the above would have taken place here after the Columbine incident, actually more closely to the Randy Weaver case and Waco as well.No, I beleive there is more to removing our guns than the population beleives. As I stated in my previous post what will be next to be banned? Knives, rope, bows and arrows, how far do we go to the extreme before we find ourselves at the mercy of outlaws with guns. Yes, the corrupt individual will always have a gun at their disposal and we can sit in fear of this kind of vermin as we become an unarmed nation. I beleive in the integrity of what our forefathers wrote and stood for. Now we are reduced to saying that certain amendments have no real merit. When will the freedom of speech be taken away?
[quote]What do you need to have a license in US and in particular in texas (i said Texas, but you are a texan, and you are not supposed to know all the differents laws of all the differents states)<hr></blockquote>
I can see how this is a foreign concept...
In our constitution, the federal government (theoretically) only has the powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution. It is up to states individually to determine everything else. The U.S. Constitution, in this instance, only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
All U.S. states have some degree of self-determination, I do not think France has this kind of setup.
Example:
Arizona has open-carry laws. Which means you can walk around with a pistol on your side in plain sight, in a holster. You have to get licensed for this and it is a long and drawn-out process to get licensed. But in Arizona a citizen can walk around cowboy-style.
Texas has concealed-carry laws. Which means you can walk around with a pistol hidden on your person. You have to get licensed for this, same hassles and you can get arrested for exposing your gun unnecessarily.
---
[quote]The ignorance of the general public on the aspects of guns and their mechanics is to blame for a lot of misconceptions.<hr></blockquote>
DING DING DING DING DING!!!
We have a winnah!
---
[quote]Yes, but I think the extent to which they're referring to individuals' ability to fight the gov't is debatable.<hr></blockquote>
Read the Declaration of Independence, fool. While not a document with governmental authority, it certainly speaks volumes about the intentions of the framers.
"...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 to 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."
[quote]What is clear is that they didn't like the idea of a strong, independent Federal military - they wanted the military to be composed of individual state armies, with citizens from those states supplying their own arms.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know about this, I'm not disagreeing with you, I just haven't read about this. Got some examples of writings or something?
[quote]But what do we have now? A really strong federal military, and a very small role for state armies (like the national guards). I don't think too many people would argue against this, because of all the smart bombs and nukes that obviously you aren't gonna keep back in the wood shed with your musket.<hr></blockquote>
State armies, while not involved in overseas conflict, still have an active, albeit unglamorous, role in life.
And a well-armed populace has a lot of potential for insurrection and home defense should a foreign invader get past our big giant military.
[quote]Let's face it, there just aren't any state militias today like there used to be. This fact makes the Second Amendment barely relevant today, IMO. Which is probably why it has virtually no impact in modern case law<hr></blockquote>
That's frightening that you think the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant.
But it is open to interpretation, I suppose:
"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."
I think the key word that unlocks the interpretation of this is the inclusion of "the people".
If it were merely about state militias/armies being allowed to operate there would be no use for "the people". Just because we don't have minutemen anymore doesn't mean that an armed populace serves no purpose.
What a lot of people fail to understand is that most of the gun-involved crimes are made with illegal weapons. That is, they weren't bought at a store, under the observation of licensing and regulation.
Personally, I don't own any guns, but I have a feeling that will change. I like guns. I don't really use them much, but I like to look at them, take them apart, etc. I would definitely be upset if I didn't have access to them, all because some lawmakers think that they know all there is to know about society. Would I then buy guns illegally? Probably yes. I pay little respect myself to laws that disrespect me.
Lastly, Anders mentioned: "A couple of days ago we experienced a school shooting episode. Something that is very seldom here."
Really, school shootings aren't very common here either. Columbine was an oddity. The violence in our inner city schools isn't so much an aspect of the system, but of the crime that exists more prevalently in inner cities, which pervades everything in the inner city. If that violence is to be checked, then there's a lot of work to be done, and personally I don't think it's worth it. That is, conventional efforts wouldn't work too well.
- The killer was member in two shooting clubs. He had a licence and was a legal owner of his guns.
- Shortly after the shooting the media concenctrated on the pumpgun he was wearing. But he didn't use it - he just carried it with him while using handguns.
- The next morning the initial reaction of the conservative's candidate for the election in September said something like: we need more intolerance towards the makers and distributors of "killer games". It could happen that Counter-Strike is banned in Germany.
reading should be for the cultured only, the nobolity has been getting short shrifted these many years and I think these shootings are startint to show the truth: its all writing's fault
As we move into a nightamre Kafkaesque world how can it be surprising that people go on the rampage? here's an idea. Would incidents like this occur if:
Bullying was wiped out
Employers treated their employees with respect
People were looked after
Politicians listened to people
People who worked an honest days work got a decent wage out of it
Companies were not allowed to exploit people via their children through advertising
Society existed for its members and not for its rulers/controllers
For those that say that taking away a right to bear arms would not change anything vis-a-vis school shootings and the like, I would beg to differ...
1) Where I grew up, and where I live now, society impose(d)(s) stricter gun laws. Gun-related crimes in both those countries are much lower than in countries with cowboy gun laws (and yes, I include texas in my run-and-gun definition of "cowboy".
2) I have no doubt that many pro-gun writers to this forum are oer would be responsible gun owners. But loose gun laws allow many people that you should be frightened of to also get guns. That is the issue. Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.
3) Specifically WRT to kids, the degree to which guns enable the act of killing is significant. Few kids could kill many people with a knife--it's actually pretty hard to kill someone with a knife, let alone many people. But a three year old can pop a cap in yer ass. So I'm pretty sure that in the absence of a gun the frequency of school killings may not drop, but the severity of those incidents would be more reasonable.
4) Many of us also have argued (if not here then in other similar conversations elsewhere) that most gun related killings are drug-related, or involve poor people. What... these people don't count? Of course they do.
5) Although you may think that many people would buy guns illegally under strict gun control (and I guess that many would initially), the fact is that eventually it would be a) hard to find a gun seller and b) hard to conceal the possession after the fact. Eventually guns in the US would be quite rare.
6) here is a straw poll: How many of you that are against gun control are in favour of capital punishment?
For those that say that taking away a right to bear arms would not change anything vis-a-vis school shootings and the like, I would beg to differ...
1) Where I grew up, and where I live now, society impose(d)(s) stricter gun laws. Gun-related crimes in both those countries are much lower than in countries with cowboy gun laws (and yes, I include texas in my run-and-gun definition of "cowboy".
2) I have no doubt that many pro-gun writers to this forum are oer would be responsible gun owners. But loose gun laws allow many people that you should be frightened of to also get guns. That is the issue. Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.
3) Specifically WRT to kids, the degree to which guns enable the act of killing is significant. Few kids could kill many people with a knife--it's actually pretty hard to kill someone with a knife, let alone many people. But a three year old can pop a cap in yer ass. So I'm pretty sure that in the absence of a gun the frequency of school killings may not drop, but the severity of those incidents would be more reasonable.
4) Many of us also have argued (if not here then in other similar conversations elsewhere) that most gun related killings are drug-related, or involve poor people. What... these people don't count? Of course they do.
5) Although you may think that many people would buy guns illegally under strict gun control (and I guess that many would initially), the fact is that eventually it would be a) hard to find a gun seller and b) hard to conceal the possession after the fact. Eventually guns in the US would be quite rare.
6) here is a straw poll: How many of you that are against gun control are in favour of capital punishment?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Totaly against gun control and definetly for capital punishment. Why? Should the tax payers of any given state be burdened with supporting murderers in prison for life? Most inmates have better provisions given them than law abiding citizens do. Example, three hots and a bed every day guarenteed, homeless people have no such luxury. Totally paid for health care and dental care..I have to pay deductions out the ass for my plan at work. The chance to earn a damn college diploma, let's see I thought they were in prison for a crime. The liberal whiny asses that always protest here in Florida at an excecution have never had a family member die at the hands of a cold blooded killer. Where does all the concern for the DEAD VICTIM go? Out the frickin door because he/she is no longer here to speak for them selves. So we get these whiners that say the electric chair here in Florida is cruel. So f@#kin what!! What about the cruel torture/death of the murder victims? Just forget it because they are already dead? I was here in Florida when the state finally fried Ted bundy. he cost the tax payers over 15 MILLION dollars in 11 years for his court appeals and stays of execution. Now what kind of financial help did the victims families get? Not a red fu#kin cent!! So yes I am strongly for capital punishment and as far as guns are concerned..fear the government that fears your gun.
Well actually I shouldn´t be making jokes about it because the situation is seriously. A couple of days ago we experienced a school shooting episode. Something that is very seldom here. What interested me was how people reacted to it and how it differed from the reactions in US when the same thing happenes.
So please answer the following:
1) What first come to mind as the reason for people to go into schools and start shooting people?
2) What can be done to prevent the same thing from happening in the future?.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Don't know.
2a) Ban guns. But wouldn't bad people smuggle them in? So this won't work. And even if bad people couldn't get guns, they would still find ways to kill (and rob and rape, etc).
2b) Identify the root cause of violence and then come up with a fix. It would mean we would have to figure out the right way to raise ALL people so that they have a respect for the lives and well being of others. Of course, if we did this, not only would we end gun shootings but we would end rapes, muggings, murder by knives etc., robberies, etc. And, since it would be a much safer place to live, gun sales would drop dramatically because the need for self protection would be almost vanished.
What are you rolling your eyes at with that picture?
--
[quote]Where I grew up, and where I live now, society impose(d)(s) stricter gun laws. Gun-related crimes in both those countries are much lower than in countries with cowboy gun laws (and yes, I include texas in my run-and-gun definition of "cowboy".<hr></blockquote>
School shootings aren't common in the United States, I don't know where you get the idea that kids haul off and kill 30+ other kids every other week in America.
As far as I'm concerned it's not really a problem farther than a rare occurance blown out of proportion by the media.
[quote]Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.<hr></blockquote>
That's a generalization you aren't qualified to make. How many American gun owners do you run across in Amsterdam?
[quote]So I'm pretty sure that in the absence of a gun the frequency of school killings may not drop, but the severity of those incidents would be more reasonable.<hr></blockquote>
They are rare as it is. Saving <5 (this is a rough guesstimate #) school shooting deaths per year is not worth taking away a constitutionally protected right.
Thousands upon thousands of teenagers per year are killed by cars. It is the #1 cause of death among teenagers. Yet little is done about this; point being that it is not worth it in the scheme of things.
[quote]Many of us also have argued (if not here then in other similar conversations elsewhere) that most gun related killings are drug-related, or involve poor people. What... these people don't count? Of course they do.<hr></blockquote>
They count, yes, but their guns are generally illegal (i.e. - smuggled in and unregistered). That's why they don't count when talking about the validity of removing guns as a crime deterrant since they prove that making something illegal doesn't make it go away.
[quote]Although you may think that many people would buy guns illegally under strict gun control (and I guess that many would initially), the fact is that eventually it would be a) hard to find a gun seller and b) hard to conceal the possession after the fact. Eventually guns in the US would be quite rare.<hr></blockquote>
- Handguns are quite easy to hide.
But yes, it would be more difficult to get them, but the only people who had them would be baddies assured of an unarmed populace of suckers to prey on.
And there's that whole pesky "constitutionally-protected right" issue... but that's trivial it seems.
[quote]here is a straw poll: How many of you that are against gun control are in favour of capital punishment?<hr></blockquote>
Against further gun control measures for the sake of being a gun control measure. In favor of a capital punishment system that needs radical modification (it's racist, after all).
----------
Robertp:
I'm a fellow pro-gun pro-death guy, but...
[quote]Should the tax payers of any given state be burdened with supporting murderers in prison for life?<hr></blockquote>
It costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life.
[quote]Most inmates have better provisions given them than law abiding citizens do.<hr></blockquote>
This is a load of shit. A big fat steaming pile of shit.
What are you rolling your eyes at with that picture?
--
This is a load of shit. A big fat steaming pile of shit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Prove me wrong. How can you say it is a load of shit when it is the truth. Why can a criminal go into prison a criminal and come out with a free degree? That is no load of shit, and where did you dream up it cost more to execute than house? I respect your opinion but back up this statemant with fact as I have in the case of ted bundy. How in the hell can you say it would have cost more than 15 mill to fry his ass when he should haved been instead of all the appeals he was granted? Flroida for one state has more remedial inmate programs at the tax payers cost than most states. If you do not mind footing their bills so be it, but I speak as a majority here in Florida are tired of prison perks.
[quote] School shootings aren't common in the United States, I don't know where you get the idea that kids haul off and kill 30+ other kids every other week in America.<hr></blockquote>
I wasn't specifically referring to school shootings; I know that they are rare events. Rather, I was referring to gun-related crimes in general, and here the US demonstrates particularly fine distinction. Is this a given, or do you insist that I have to go look up the statistics?
I said:
[quote]Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.<hr></blockquote>
Groverat said:
[quote]That's a generalization you aren't qualified to make. How many American gun owners do you run across in Amsterdam?
<hr></blockquote>
Actually, that's a statement you are not qualified to make. In fact, I am quite familiar with American gun culture. I spent most of my life in or near America. It just so happens that right now (for 5 years), I live in Europe. In fact, living in Europe gives me the authority to compare and contrast the two systems.
I said:
[quote]
So I'm pretty sure that in the absence of a gun the frequency of school killings may not drop, but the severity of those incidents would be more reasonable.
<hr></blockquote>
Groverat said:
[quote]They are rare as it is. Saving <5 (this is a rough guesstimate #) school shooting deaths per year is not worth taking away a constitutionally protected right.
<hr></blockquote>
The fact that something is "constitutionally protected" does not make it sacrosanct. More aged cultures understand this. Royal decrees and laws made hundreds of years ago are silly by today's standards and simply don't apply. These kinds of laws are being taken off the books all the time. Even the US undergoes reform upon enlightenment, which is what many of the constitutional amendments are all about. The right to bear arms in the US was intended, as has been highlighted earlier in this thread, to protect the people from a corrupt or abusive government. Such words sound so hollow today for several reasons. First, your handguns will not protect you from Dubya (which was their purpose) if he blows a gasket; any insurrection based upon the kinds of guns you can legally owen would be a joke indeed. Second, who's to decide what is corrupt? All those presidential assassins through the years, I guess? Third, the media complex is so involved in making of a culture these days, that if the government, should it choose to be abusive, could do so in a way that would make it impossible to form an organised revolt. They would simply insinuate themselves in the media and control your perceptions; that was not possible in 1776, when people actually had to think for themselves during the daily discourse.
I, and others, find the right to bear arms a once necessary, but today offensive, right. I think the constitution needs to be ameneded again. To further the point, the right to bear arms is not a fundamental human right, is it? It's only "constitutional" within the US (amoung G7esque nations), right? Why do you still think you need it when everyone else does not? The constitutionality of something like the right to bear arms is trotted out by those who want to own a gun. Period. It plays well in that it exploits the strong patriotic streak in Americans. The vast majority of these people have given no thought to using it to protect themselves against the government (except for a five minute daydream involving Schwarzeneager-like oneliners.). So why the self delusion? If evil tyrannical government is the sole constitutional justification of handguns, and it is irrelevant in todays world, can't that ammendment be challenged?
Groverat said:
[quote]
Thousands upon thousands of teenagers per year are killed by cars. It is the #1 cause of death among teenagers. Yet little is done about this; point being that it is not worth it in the scheme of things.
<hr></blockquote>
Car accidents are not germane to this thread.
I said:
[quote]
Many of us also have argued (if not here then in other similar conversations elsewhere) that most gun related killings are drug-related, or involve poor people. What... these people don't count? Of course they do.
<hr></blockquote>
Groverat said:
[quote]
They count, yes, but their guns are generally illegal (i.e. - smuggled in and unregistered). That's why they don't count when talking about the validity of removing guns as a crime deterrant since they prove that making something illegal doesn't make it go away.
<hr></blockquote>
Poor people can't own legal guns? Also, recall my point about availability. Let me tell you, it's nearly impossible for a person to find a gun here. I'm sure you <b>can't</b> get them, but it's not easy. Restricting gun access for the general population would indeed result in fewer illegal guns, both amoung the general population and that subset called criminals. In fact, I bet <b>most</b> criminals here in Holland don't own a gun.
Poor people can't own legal guns? Also, recall my point about availability. Let me tell you, it's nearly impossible for a person to find a gun here. I'm sure you <b>can't</b> get them, but it's not easy. Restricting gun access for the general population would indeed result in fewer illegal guns, both amoung the general population and that subset called criminals. In fact, I bet <b>most</b> criminals here in Holland don't own a gun.
Ah the nievity of Europe...has history not taught anyone a lesson? The domination by Germany and their trouncing all over Europe and taking , killing who or whatever they pleased. Moving forward to Tennamen Sqare, no right to assemble and protest without fear of being shot or run over by tanks. Funny how these EUROPEAN events have not taken place here in AMERICA. Outside of our own internal scirmish, when have we be fired upon by our military in a protest? OK I will concede to the events of Kent State during the turmoil in the 60's but other than that what? People so quickly forget that our great forefathers of this nation gambled everything they had on the prospect of surviving when they chose to come to AMERICA. This country was the disdane of mother England..we were bullied, blockaded, raided, and yet our spirit and our guns set us free once and for all. AND our founding fathers had the foresight to realise that what happened to them in England could happen here if our government got to powerfull. Thus the provision of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.Why is the world so resentful of our gun ownership? Could it be because at one time other countries had this right only to have it abolished by their government? As you state in your posts I get the perception that you believe if guns were not allowed to be owned crime would not exist? You state yourself that in Holland CRIMINALS do not have guns. If Holland has no guns why do you have criminals?
See what I mean about an appeal to blind patriotism?
Robertp, I really don't think your helping anyone make a case here. In fact, you're kinda proving my point. You seemed to be just centimeters (uh... inches) from a German racial slur.
I did not claim that criminals in Holland don't have guns. Don't put words in my mouth. I said most criminals in Holland don't have guns. The same might be true in the states, but I'm pretty sure that a greater fraction of US criminals carry or own guns, either legal or otherwise, because a) guns are easy to get and b) gun possession is east to hide ("he owns a gun. he must have a license").
Oh, and "Tennamen Sqare" as you call it is no where near Europe. It's in China.
And Germany does indeed practice gun control.
And to answerr the question:
[quote]Why is the world so resentful of our gun ownership? Could it be because at one time other countries had this right only to have it abolished by their government? <hr></blockquote>
No, that's not why. Most people feel that handguns are made to kill people. Most people feel that human life should not be taken under any circumstances. Which is why all other civilized countries have dispensed with capital punishment and impose gun control. The rest of the world (as represented by policy, not necessarily the opinions of individuals) find these facts repulsive: 1) The US is perpetually near the bottom of the Amnesty International human right violations list of offenders. 2) US prisons are overflowing. 3) Some states practice institutionalized execution. 4) People can buy a handgun in the US and feel proud about it.
Comments
<strong>Let me shed some light on this "right to keep and bare arms" issue. This was initiated by our forefathers as a way to guard the private citizens of America against possible tyrannical action by our government (part of the reason our great forefathers left England to begin with)ie: search and seizure of homes without provocation or warrent. This right was granted soley to keep the colonies protected by having the right to form malitia and protect their township.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, but I think the extent to which they're referring to individuals' ability to fight the gov't is debatable. What is clear is that they didn't like the idea of a strong, independent Federal military - they wanted the military to be composed of individual state armies, with citizens from those states supplying their own arms.
But what do we have now? A really strong federal military, and a very small role for state armies (like the national guards). I don't think too many people would argue against this, because of all the smart bombs and nukes that obviously you aren't gonna keep back in the wood shed with your musket.
Let's face it, there just aren't any state militias today like there used to be. This fact makes the Second Amendment barely relevant today, IMO. Which is probably why it has virtually no impact in modern case law.
<strong>Yes, but I think the extent to which they're referring to individuals' ability to fight the gov't is debatable. What is clear is that they didn't like the idea of a strong, independent Federal military - they wanted the military to be composed of individual state armies, with citizens from those states supplying their own arms.
But what do we have now? A really strong federal military, and a very small role for state armies (like the national guards). I don't think too many people would argue against this, because of all the smart bombs and nukes that obviously you aren't gonna keep back in the wood shed with your musket.
Let's face it, there just aren't any state militias today like there used to be. This fact makes the Second Amendment barely relevant today, IMO. Which is probably why it has virtually no impact in modern case law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well why then are there groups in Washington lobbying so hard to remove this right of gun ownership if this amendmant has no merit as you say? If the "right to keep and bare arms" is no more than a catch phrase and has no merit, then why has the federal government not followed suit with England and Australia in the removal of guns from homes? Mind you, these guns were removed house by house and in our modern time. I think there is more weight to this amendment than you think or the above would have taken place here after the Columbine incident, actually more closely to the Randy Weaver case and Waco as well.No, I beleive there is more to removing our guns than the population beleives. As I stated in my previous post what will be next to be banned? Knives, rope, bows and arrows, how far do we go to the extreme before we find ourselves at the mercy of outlaws with guns. Yes, the corrupt individual will always have a gun at their disposal and we can sit in fear of this kind of vermin as we become an unarmed nation. I beleive in the integrity of what our forefathers wrote and stood for. Now we are reduced to saying that certain amendments have no real merit. When will the freedom of speech be taken away?
I can see how this is a foreign concept...
In our constitution, the federal government (theoretically) only has the powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution. It is up to states individually to determine everything else. The U.S. Constitution, in this instance, only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
All U.S. states have some degree of self-determination, I do not think France has this kind of setup.
Example:
Arizona has open-carry laws. Which means you can walk around with a pistol on your side in plain sight, in a holster. You have to get licensed for this and it is a long and drawn-out process to get licensed. But in Arizona a citizen can walk around cowboy-style.
Texas has concealed-carry laws. Which means you can walk around with a pistol hidden on your person. You have to get licensed for this, same hassles and you can get arrested for exposing your gun unnecessarily.
---
[quote]The ignorance of the general public on the aspects of guns and their mechanics is to blame for a lot of misconceptions.<hr></blockquote>
DING DING DING DING DING!!!
We have a winnah!
---
[quote]Yes, but I think the extent to which they're referring to individuals' ability to fight the gov't is debatable.<hr></blockquote>
Read the Declaration of Independence, fool. While not a document with governmental authority, it certainly speaks volumes about the intentions of the framers.
"...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 to 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."
[quote]What is clear is that they didn't like the idea of a strong, independent Federal military - they wanted the military to be composed of individual state armies, with citizens from those states supplying their own arms.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know about this, I'm not disagreeing with you, I just haven't read about this. Got some examples of writings or something?
[quote]But what do we have now? A really strong federal military, and a very small role for state armies (like the national guards). I don't think too many people would argue against this, because of all the smart bombs and nukes that obviously you aren't gonna keep back in the wood shed with your musket.<hr></blockquote>
State armies, while not involved in overseas conflict, still have an active, albeit unglamorous, role in life.
And a well-armed populace has a lot of potential for insurrection and home defense should a foreign invader get past our big giant military.
[quote]Let's face it, there just aren't any state militias today like there used to be. This fact makes the Second Amendment barely relevant today, IMO. Which is probably why it has virtually no impact in modern case law<hr></blockquote>
That's frightening that you think the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant.
But it is open to interpretation, I suppose:
"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."
I think the key word that unlocks the interpretation of this is the inclusion of "the people".
If it were merely about state militias/armies being allowed to operate there would be no use for "the people". Just because we don't have minutemen anymore doesn't mean that an armed populace serves no purpose.
Personally, I don't own any guns, but I have a feeling that will change. I like guns. I don't really use them much, but I like to look at them, take them apart, etc. I would definitely be upset if I didn't have access to them, all because some lawmakers think that they know all there is to know about society. Would I then buy guns illegally? Probably yes. I pay little respect myself to laws that disrespect me.
Lastly, Anders mentioned: "A couple of days ago we experienced a school shooting episode. Something that is very seldom here."
Really, school shootings aren't very common here either. Columbine was an oddity. The violence in our inner city schools isn't so much an aspect of the system, but of the crime that exists more prevalently in inner cities, which pervades everything in the inner city. If that violence is to be checked, then there's a lot of work to be done, and personally I don't think it's worth it. That is, conventional efforts wouldn't work too well.
- The killer was member in two shooting clubs. He had a licence and was a legal owner of his guns.
- Shortly after the shooting the media concenctrated on the pumpgun he was wearing. But he didn't use it - he just carried it with him while using handguns.
- The next morning the initial reaction of the conservative's candidate for the election in September said something like: we need more intolerance towards the makers and distributors of "killer games". It could happen that Counter-Strike is banned in Germany.
No fun in being a game developer these days ...
Europe is behind the curve on this one.
uhh and what was the other question?
-banning arms is not gonna change anything.
1) it's in our genes (from the waybacktimes)
2) if someone wants a gun - he will get one.
-banning games is not gonna change anything.
1) games are just another media. (ban tv, books, speech?)
2) most people use games to get rid of agression
we have to change our agressive envirement.
and if we want to change that - we have to change everything.
i think we are stuck with this problem.
but if everybody does good things in his small world - then we could make a change.
Bullying was wiped out
Employers treated their employees with respect
People were looked after
Politicians listened to people
People who worked an honest days work got a decent wage out of it
Companies were not allowed to exploit people via their children through advertising
Society existed for its members and not for its rulers/controllers
. . .
For those that say that taking away a right to bear arms would not change anything vis-a-vis school shootings and the like, I would beg to differ...
1) Where I grew up, and where I live now, society impose(d)(s) stricter gun laws. Gun-related crimes in both those countries are much lower than in countries with cowboy gun laws (and yes, I include texas in my run-and-gun definition of "cowboy".
2) I have no doubt that many pro-gun writers to this forum are oer would be responsible gun owners. But loose gun laws allow many people that you should be frightened of to also get guns. That is the issue. Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.
3) Specifically WRT to kids, the degree to which guns enable the act of killing is significant. Few kids could kill many people with a knife--it's actually pretty hard to kill someone with a knife, let alone many people. But a three year old can pop a cap in yer ass. So I'm pretty sure that in the absence of a gun the frequency of school killings may not drop, but the severity of those incidents would be more reasonable.
4) Many of us also have argued (if not here then in other similar conversations elsewhere) that most gun related killings are drug-related, or involve poor people. What... these people don't count? Of course they do.
5) Although you may think that many people would buy guns illegally under strict gun control (and I guess that many would initially), the fact is that eventually it would be a) hard to find a gun seller and b) hard to conceal the possession after the fact. Eventually guns in the US would be quite rare.
6) here is a straw poll: How many of you that are against gun control are in favour of capital punishment?
<strong>That sounds almost like Holland!
For those that say that taking away a right to bear arms would not change anything vis-a-vis school shootings and the like, I would beg to differ...
1) Where I grew up, and where I live now, society impose(d)(s) stricter gun laws. Gun-related crimes in both those countries are much lower than in countries with cowboy gun laws (and yes, I include texas in my run-and-gun definition of "cowboy".
2) I have no doubt that many pro-gun writers to this forum are oer would be responsible gun owners. But loose gun laws allow many people that you should be frightened of to also get guns. That is the issue. Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.
3) Specifically WRT to kids, the degree to which guns enable the act of killing is significant. Few kids could kill many people with a knife--it's actually pretty hard to kill someone with a knife, let alone many people. But a three year old can pop a cap in yer ass. So I'm pretty sure that in the absence of a gun the frequency of school killings may not drop, but the severity of those incidents would be more reasonable.
4) Many of us also have argued (if not here then in other similar conversations elsewhere) that most gun related killings are drug-related, or involve poor people. What... these people don't count? Of course they do.
5) Although you may think that many people would buy guns illegally under strict gun control (and I guess that many would initially), the fact is that eventually it would be a) hard to find a gun seller and b) hard to conceal the possession after the fact. Eventually guns in the US would be quite rare.
6) here is a straw poll: How many of you that are against gun control are in favour of capital punishment?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Totaly against gun control and definetly for capital punishment. Why? Should the tax payers of any given state be burdened with supporting murderers in prison for life? Most inmates have better provisions given them than law abiding citizens do. Example, three hots and a bed every day guarenteed, homeless people have no such luxury. Totally paid for health care and dental care..I have to pay deductions out the ass for my plan at work. The chance to earn a damn college diploma, let's see I thought they were in prison for a crime. The liberal whiny asses that always protest here in Florida at an excecution have never had a family member die at the hands of a cold blooded killer. Where does all the concern for the DEAD VICTIM go? Out the frickin door because he/she is no longer here to speak for them selves. So we get these whiners that say the electric chair here in Florida is cruel. So f@#kin what!! What about the cruel torture/death of the murder victims? Just forget it because they are already dead? I was here in Florida when the state finally fried Ted bundy. he cost the tax payers over 15 MILLION dollars in 11 years for his court appeals and stays of execution. Now what kind of financial help did the victims families get? Not a red fu#kin cent!! So yes I am strongly for capital punishment and as far as guns are concerned..fear the government that fears your gun.
<strong>
Well actually I shouldn´t be making jokes about it because the situation is seriously. A couple of days ago we experienced a school shooting episode. Something that is very seldom here. What interested me was how people reacted to it and how it differed from the reactions in US when the same thing happenes.
So please answer the following:
1) What first come to mind as the reason for people to go into schools and start shooting people?
2) What can be done to prevent the same thing from happening in the future?.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Don't know.
2a) Ban guns. But wouldn't bad people smuggle them in? So this won't work. And even if bad people couldn't get guns, they would still find ways to kill (and rob and rape, etc).
2b) Identify the root cause of violence and then come up with a fix. It would mean we would have to figure out the right way to raise ALL people so that they have a respect for the lives and well being of others. Of course, if we did this, not only would we end gun shootings but we would end rapes, muggings, murder by knives etc., robberies, etc. And, since it would be a much safer place to live, gun sales would drop dramatically because the need for self protection would be almost vanished.
What are you rolling your eyes at with that picture?
--
[quote]Where I grew up, and where I live now, society impose(d)(s) stricter gun laws. Gun-related crimes in both those countries are much lower than in countries with cowboy gun laws (and yes, I include texas in my run-and-gun definition of "cowboy".<hr></blockquote>
School shootings aren't common in the United States, I don't know where you get the idea that kids haul off and kill 30+ other kids every other week in America.
As far as I'm concerned it's not really a problem farther than a rare occurance blown out of proportion by the media.
[quote]Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.<hr></blockquote>
That's a generalization you aren't qualified to make. How many American gun owners do you run across in Amsterdam?
[quote]So I'm pretty sure that in the absence of a gun the frequency of school killings may not drop, but the severity of those incidents would be more reasonable.<hr></blockquote>
They are rare as it is. Saving <5 (this is a rough guesstimate #) school shooting deaths per year is not worth taking away a constitutionally protected right.
Thousands upon thousands of teenagers per year are killed by cars. It is the #1 cause of death among teenagers. Yet little is done about this; point being that it is not worth it in the scheme of things.
[quote]Many of us also have argued (if not here then in other similar conversations elsewhere) that most gun related killings are drug-related, or involve poor people. What... these people don't count? Of course they do.<hr></blockquote>
They count, yes, but their guns are generally illegal (i.e. - smuggled in and unregistered). That's why they don't count when talking about the validity of removing guns as a crime deterrant since they prove that making something illegal doesn't make it go away.
[quote]Although you may think that many people would buy guns illegally under strict gun control (and I guess that many would initially), the fact is that eventually it would be a) hard to find a gun seller and b) hard to conceal the possession after the fact. Eventually guns in the US would be quite rare.<hr></blockquote>
- Handguns are quite easy to hide.
But yes, it would be more difficult to get them, but the only people who had them would be baddies assured of an unarmed populace of suckers to prey on.
And there's that whole pesky "constitutionally-protected right" issue... but that's trivial it seems.
[quote]here is a straw poll: How many of you that are against gun control are in favour of capital punishment?<hr></blockquote>
Against further gun control measures for the sake of being a gun control measure. In favor of a capital punishment system that needs radical modification (it's racist, after all).
----------
Robertp:
I'm a fellow pro-gun pro-death guy, but...
[quote]Should the tax payers of any given state be burdened with supporting murderers in prison for life?<hr></blockquote>
It costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life.
[quote]Most inmates have better provisions given them than law abiding citizens do.<hr></blockquote>
This is a load of shit. A big fat steaming pile of shit.
<strong>artman:
What are you rolling your eyes at with that picture?
--
This is a load of shit. A big fat steaming pile of shit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Prove me wrong. How can you say it is a load of shit when it is the truth. Why can a criminal go into prison a criminal and come out with a free degree? That is no load of shit, and where did you dream up it cost more to execute than house? I respect your opinion but back up this statemant with fact as I have in the case of ted bundy. How in the hell can you say it would have cost more than 15 mill to fry his ass when he should haved been instead of all the appeals he was granted? Flroida for one state has more remedial inmate programs at the tax payers cost than most states. If you do not mind footing their bills so be it, but I speak as a majority here in Florida are tired of prison perks.
[quote] School shootings aren't common in the United States, I don't know where you get the idea that kids haul off and kill 30+ other kids every other week in America.<hr></blockquote>
I wasn't specifically referring to school shootings; I know that they are rare events. Rather, I was referring to gun-related crimes in general, and here the US demonstrates particularly fine distinction. Is this a given, or do you insist that I have to go look up the statistics?
I said:
[quote]Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.<hr></blockquote>
Groverat said:
[quote]That's a generalization you aren't qualified to make. How many American gun owners do you run across in Amsterdam?
<hr></blockquote>
Actually, that's a statement you are not qualified to make. In fact, I am quite familiar with American gun culture. I spent most of my life in or near America. It just so happens that right now (for 5 years), I live in Europe. In fact, living in Europe gives me the authority to compare and contrast the two systems.
I said:
[quote]
So I'm pretty sure that in the absence of a gun the frequency of school killings may not drop, but the severity of those incidents would be more reasonable.
<hr></blockquote>
Groverat said:
[quote]They are rare as it is. Saving <5 (this is a rough guesstimate #) school shooting deaths per year is not worth taking away a constitutionally protected right.
<hr></blockquote>
The fact that something is "constitutionally protected" does not make it sacrosanct. More aged cultures understand this. Royal decrees and laws made hundreds of years ago are silly by today's standards and simply don't apply. These kinds of laws are being taken off the books all the time. Even the US undergoes reform upon enlightenment, which is what many of the constitutional amendments are all about. The right to bear arms in the US was intended, as has been highlighted earlier in this thread, to protect the people from a corrupt or abusive government. Such words sound so hollow today for several reasons. First, your handguns will not protect you from Dubya (which was their purpose) if he blows a gasket; any insurrection based upon the kinds of guns you can legally owen would be a joke indeed. Second, who's to decide what is corrupt? All those presidential assassins through the years, I guess? Third, the media complex is so involved in making of a culture these days, that if the government, should it choose to be abusive, could do so in a way that would make it impossible to form an organised revolt. They would simply insinuate themselves in the media and control your perceptions; that was not possible in 1776, when people actually had to think for themselves during the daily discourse.
I, and others, find the right to bear arms a once necessary, but today offensive, right. I think the constitution needs to be ameneded again. To further the point, the right to bear arms is not a fundamental human right, is it? It's only "constitutional" within the US (amoung G7esque nations), right? Why do you still think you need it when everyone else does not? The constitutionality of something like the right to bear arms is trotted out by those who want to own a gun. Period. It plays well in that it exploits the strong patriotic streak in Americans. The vast majority of these people have given no thought to using it to protect themselves against the government (except for a five minute daydream involving Schwarzeneager-like oneliners.). So why the self delusion? If evil tyrannical government is the sole constitutional justification of handguns, and it is irrelevant in todays world, can't that ammendment be challenged?
Groverat said:
[quote]
Thousands upon thousands of teenagers per year are killed by cars. It is the #1 cause of death among teenagers. Yet little is done about this; point being that it is not worth it in the scheme of things.
<hr></blockquote>
Car accidents are not germane to this thread.
I said:
[quote]
Many of us also have argued (if not here then in other similar conversations elsewhere) that most gun related killings are drug-related, or involve poor people. What... these people don't count? Of course they do.
<hr></blockquote>
Groverat said:
[quote]
They count, yes, but their guns are generally illegal (i.e. - smuggled in and unregistered). That's why they don't count when talking about the validity of removing guns as a crime deterrant since they prove that making something illegal doesn't make it go away.
<hr></blockquote>
Poor people can't own legal guns? Also, recall my point about availability. Let me tell you, it's nearly impossible for a person to find a gun here. I'm sure you <b>can't</b> get them, but it's not easy. Restricting gun access for the general population would indeed result in fewer illegal guns, both amoung the general population and that subset called criminals. In fact, I bet <b>most</b> criminals here in Holland don't own a gun.
[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: wormboy ]</p>
[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: The Installer ]</p>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[QB]Groverat said:
Poor people can't own legal guns? Also, recall my point about availability. Let me tell you, it's nearly impossible for a person to find a gun here. I'm sure you <b>can't</b> get them, but it's not easy. Restricting gun access for the general population would indeed result in fewer illegal guns, both amoung the general population and that subset called criminals. In fact, I bet <b>most</b> criminals here in Holland don't own a gun.
Ah the nievity of Europe...has history not taught anyone a lesson? The domination by Germany and their trouncing all over Europe and taking , killing who or whatever they pleased. Moving forward to Tennamen Sqare, no right to assemble and protest without fear of being shot or run over by tanks. Funny how these EUROPEAN events have not taken place here in AMERICA. Outside of our own internal scirmish, when have we be fired upon by our military in a protest? OK I will concede to the events of Kent State during the turmoil in the 60's but other than that what? People so quickly forget that our great forefathers of this nation gambled everything they had on the prospect of surviving when they chose to come to AMERICA. This country was the disdane of mother England..we were bullied, blockaded, raided, and yet our spirit and our guns set us free once and for all. AND our founding fathers had the foresight to realise that what happened to them in England could happen here if our government got to powerfull. Thus the provision of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.Why is the world so resentful of our gun ownership? Could it be because at one time other countries had this right only to have it abolished by their government? As you state in your posts I get the perception that you believe if guns were not allowed to be owned crime would not exist? You state yourself that in Holland CRIMINALS do not have guns. If Holland has no guns why do you have criminals?
Robertp, I really don't think your helping anyone make a case here. In fact, you're kinda proving my point. You seemed to be just centimeters (uh... inches) from a German racial slur.
I did not claim that criminals in Holland don't have guns. Don't put words in my mouth. I said most criminals in Holland don't have guns. The same might be true in the states, but I'm pretty sure that a greater fraction of US criminals carry or own guns, either legal or otherwise, because a) guns are easy to get and b) gun possession is east to hide ("he owns a gun. he must have a license").
Oh, and "Tennamen Sqare" as you call it is no where near Europe. It's in China.
And Germany does indeed practice gun control.
And to answerr the question:
[quote]Why is the world so resentful of our gun ownership? Could it be because at one time other countries had this right only to have it abolished by their government? <hr></blockquote>
No, that's not why. Most people feel that handguns are made to kill people. Most people feel that human life should not be taken under any circumstances. Which is why all other civilized countries have dispensed with capital punishment and impose gun control. The rest of the world (as represented by policy, not necessarily the opinions of individuals) find these facts repulsive: 1) The US is perpetually near the bottom of the Amnesty International human right violations list of offenders. 2) US prisons are overflowing. 3) Some states practice institutionalized execution. 4) People can buy a handgun in the US and feel proud about it.