US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
TDINTBL
Redshirt
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:18 am
Location: In search... of the lost chord...

Post by TDINTBL » Thu Jul 15, 2004 7:56 pm

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, sometimes I do get aggitated. Anyways here it is.

In my area there is a LOT of gang violence, up the ying-yang man. I've witnessed 3 drive-bys, had two attempted break ins, witnessed about five gang gun battles. Now, most of the guns that these gangs have are illegally gotten anyways, doesn't seem like the laws did much good. Now, if I didn't have a gun to protect myself, where would I be? I was at a baseball game with my High School Band last year, my dad was home alone, when one of those attempted break ins happened. My dad is well armed and a good aim. He took his loaded .45 ACP to the front door and waited for the person to break in. They did, opened the door, was confronted by the barrel of a loaded .45 ACP (A very very large handgun), and decided that they no longer wanted to rob us, and RAN like hell. The gun did good for us. I have a recently bought Russian Mossin Nagent 7.62x54mm rifle in my room. I have also a pellet rifle, and a .22"cal rifle in there for years. Never once have I had the slightest inclination to go on a rampage. A lot of my friends own guns, neither have any of them gone on a rampage. Legal law abiding citizens will never be the problem, because, they are legal law abiding citizens.

You're in the UK, interesting. I've been hearing all sorts of horror stories about "since guns have been banned murder and other violent crimes have skyrocketed in the UK" on the news here in the states. You're actually living there, I would like to hear exactly what it's like over there in the UK.

And in the case of Germany. Let's say Hitler never banned guns over there. All those poor Jews that went to the death camps, instead of being canon-fodder for the SS Nazi bastards, instead now they all have weapons, they could have defended themselves. Would it have been violent, yes, would they have suceeded in holding of their Nazi oppressors, who knows, but at least then they would have a chance. You see what I'm saying?
The Adventures of Hamster Man
Just because I'm paranoid means they really are out to get me.

BadMonkey
Redshirt
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 11:59 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by BadMonkey » Thu Jul 15, 2004 8:49 pm

Well...
The weimar government actually introduced restrictions with the aim of disarming the Nazi's, although this was clearly ineffectual (Hitler came to power through politics anyway), and the only gun law he did pass was one in 1938 (after being in power for a long time) where he added the stipulation that Jews couldn't own guns or be involed in the arms industry in any manner.
However, there is very little that the Nazis didn't legislate (such is the way of a fascist) and lack of access to firearms was one of many, many things the Jews were denied.
I'm pretty sure they also restricted gun ownership in the occupied territories, but c'mon, thats a no-brainer.
"Face it, you're two nipples away from being human."
Did you imagine the final sound as a gun? Or the shattered windows of a car? Did you ever imagine the last thing you'd hear as you're fading out was a song?

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Post by Deacon » Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:24 pm

[quote="Pudduh";p="370377"]
The founding fathers (including Franklin) believed bearing arms was "an essential liberty", so much so that they drafted an entire amendment dedicated to securing this right for any and all persons who fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States of America. Why this isn't self-evident is beyond me.
Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin (who was originally British remember) who talked disparingly of dueling with pistols and the use of firearms in petty concepts other than in warfare and hunting?[/quote]
I don't know. Could be. Sounds like Ben. Of course, you'll have to connect the dots for me as to wtf that has to do with anything.
The Right to bear arms was passed probabbly only grudgingly by some Founding Fathers like Franklin not on the basis of "hey I loves my gun, LOVES MAH GUN!" but more on the nesscitiy that there would be quite soon a sizable British force sitting just across the border in Canada after America was granted independence.
So why write it in as one of the original 10 amendments to the Constitution? The gloriously hailed "Bill of Rights"? If the government had no interest in stripping its citizens of arms, why write it in at all? And if it were not considered a basic right, why not simply pass legislation regarding the possession of arms?
So the best thing to do? Arm the populance.
The amendment says nothing about the right to have the government give you free arms. It says that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, and that that right shall not be infringed. It certainly didn't sound like a temporary, passing whim.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
TDINTBL
Redshirt
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:18 am
Location: In search... of the lost chord...

Post by TDINTBL » Thu Jul 15, 2004 10:18 pm

Thank you deacon, you just explained it pretty well. I have problems explaining things a lot, I get too wordy for my own good.
The Adventures of Hamster Man
Just because I'm paranoid means they really are out to get me.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Post by Deacon » Thu Jul 15, 2004 10:19 pm

[quote="Pudduh";p="370402"]Right first off for a random murderer to come into your home (who I presume has a gun) he must have a motive for comming to murder you and your family[/quote]
No, he doesn't. Whether to steal (most commonly), whether he's deranged, drugged, in need of a good rape session, or whatever else, it is not true that he "must have a motive" that involves retribution of some kind. So when you say, "..did you sack him the other week? Or did he find out you were having an affair with his wife." are you suggesting that retaliating by murdering a family is permissible or allowable? That the would-b victims should not be given the chance to defend themselves?
The chances of some random schmuck comming into your home and doing a clockwork orange are more impossible than being hit by an airliner (which I might add despite 9/11 are still like several million to one).
Do you mean walking around or sitting at your office and being struck by a crashing aircraft? Because if you're referring to being the victim of a crime committed by a gun-wielding perpetrator, I'd LOVE to see some numbers on that. Actually, either way I'd love to know where you came up with that conclusion. FYI 9/11 would've increased the alleged gap, not decreased it.
And yes I do agree with you gun control does work. If we relaxed controls on guns here in the UK, gun crime would go up one hundred fold. The best way to combat guns is to control them strictly, not have them in the home and have a well equipped Police Service which responds to gun crime with a tough and targeted response.
Ahh...the sweet smell of bliss. Guns are not to be combatted. Guns are a tool. Deluding yourself into believing that you can "control them strictly" by keeping firearms only in the hands of criminals is purely an attempt to suppress a symptom, not cure an ill. And I'll be damned if I've ever heard of an omnipresent and telepathic Police Service.
There wasn't really much gun control in Weimar Germany when Adolf Hitler WON the election to bring him to power.
...what? What does that have to do with anything? Didn't he then strip the people of their arms?
Yes he won TWO elections. So what are you saying? If all the Communists and Social Democrats (who lost) had guns they could storm the bloody Reichstag and take power?
I doubt it, especially considering the amazing support he had. However, they might well give them a hard time imprisoning them, making them fight in a war, or even murdering them.
And Russia didn't have anything in the way of Gun control when the October Revolution came about in 1917. And when Stalin took power after Lenin died nobody really couldn't say no. To equip all 100 million Russians with guns after all would have deprived America's Gangsters of all their tommy guns after all in the 1920s :roll:
I'm not sure I understand the point of that paragraph.
I mean really, come up with something decent instead of repeating the tired old NRA lines....say, you wern't that chap in holding the "Gun Control works, just ask these guys.." sign in Bowling for Columbine were you? :lol:
Were those guys being sarcastic or suggesting that the laws in place were not strict enough to strip the common populace of their right to keep and bear arms?
And anyway just because you have a gun, whats wrong with rushing him with a bloody baseball bat or a kitchen knife?
Well in your country it seems to be a problem. You may also have read about a case a few months back in London (I believe it was) where 4 men, at least one of them armed, broke into a man's flat and threatened him, to which he responded with a katana, stabbing one of the men in the belly before he managed to run them off. The criminal who was stabbed later died, and the man defending himself was charged and convicted of murder. If you claim to see the justice in that, there's no way I can have a discussion with you.
Thats what we do in the UK. We're not lazy gits like you yanks where it seems that if you don't have a gun or something which you can just point and shoot and avoid the dirty hand-to-hand business when theres a breakin then you just don't bother and go back to bed!
Wow.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
TDINTBL
Redshirt
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:18 am
Location: In search... of the lost chord...

Post by TDINTBL » Thu Jul 15, 2004 10:29 pm

Another fact, or a couple of facts here.
For every round of ammunition used in a illegal manner there are litterally billions fired in a completely safe and legal manner.

In Texas, when a law was passed that made it legal to cary a weapon concealed w/o permit, violent and armed crimes actually went down, way down.
The Adventures of Hamster Man
Just because I'm paranoid means they really are out to get me.

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by Martin Blank » Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:10 am

I went and looked up some numbers on British crime. According to UK National Statistics Online, gun crime has been rising in the UK. Unfortunately, because of a change in how the statistics are collected, the numbers from the most recent years are not directly comparable to those before the 1998/99 fiscal year. However, for the most recent years, the number of offenses committed with a gun has grown:
  • 1998/99: 15,778
  • 1999/00: 18,716
  • 2000/01: 19,457
For those keeping track, that's an increase of 23.3% over the course of two years. Of all of the United Kingdom, only Scotland saw a decrease in the number of offenses in which a firearm was used, from 985 to 938. Other areas saw huge jumps, including a 34.8% increase in London (3005 to 4050) and a whopping 50% increase in West Midlands (1092 to 1638).

I've just found another report that covers from 1997/98 through 2001/02. It excludes air weapons from the list, and shows that there were 4,903 crimes involving firearms in 1997/98, and that number had climbed to 9,974 by 2001/02, an increase of 103%.

According to this Home Office report (PDF warning), the number of murders each year has climbed since 1997/98.
  • 1997/98: 611
  • 1998/99: 652
  • 1999/00: 682
  • 2000/01: 783
  • 2001/02: 832
During the same time, the murder rates in the US have generally dropped, with some slight upticks in the last couple of years probably attributable to the economic downturn, but nothing near the increases seen here. The gun ban has done little in the UK to ward off crime, and may have actually helped it.

[quote="captainktainer";p="370076"]God save us all from the necros![/quote]
Quiet, you. He resurrected a thread and was on-topic and meaningful, instead of starting a new thread. You're confined to your room for 45 minutes. No turning on the TV.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

User avatar
Pudduh
Redshirt
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:21 pm
Location: Harlow, Essex

Post by Pudduh » Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:44 am

Right seeing as I've been deluged with little quoteys I'll respond in order. I might have to skip a couple basically because there are so many..is there any chance you lot could wait in queue next time and let me answer them ^^;;;

Starting with TDINTBL...
You're in the UK, interesting. I've been hearing all sorts of horror stories about "since guns have been banned murder and other violent crimes have skyrocketed in the UK" on the news here in the states. You're actually living there, I would like to hear exactly what it's like over there in the UK.
Actually I think you'll find that the violent crime rate rather than skyrocketing has been consistently falling since the late 1980s. In fact it saw a small rise in 2003 but we've still yet to see the figures for 2004.

In the UK, the main Crime records are based on the number of arrests made rather than the number of crimes reported. However there is a smaller system which records the number of crimes reported.

Moving onto BaaaaadMenkey.
The weimar government actually introduced restrictions with the aim of disarming the Nazi's, although this was clearly ineffectual (Hitler came to power through politics anyway), and the only gun law he did pass was one in 1938 (after being in power for a long time) where he added the stipulation that Jews couldn't own guns or be involed in the arms industry in any manner.
Quite true. The reason why this was ineffectual was because the Brownshirts relied more on koshes, iron bars and other hand to hand weapons to cause chaos at Left wing and SDP meetings. You see us Europeans are much more energetic than you lazy yanks. While you lot insist on being lazy and using guns, we llike to break heads with iron bars and the like. Much more fun really.

Also another point which I really, really, REALLY must stress is that there were other groups other than the Jews who suffered Horribly under the nazis. Liberals, Communists (although whether you think Hitler should get a plus point on that one is up to you), Socialists, Gypsies, Homosexuals and Eastern Europeans/Russians were all treated as 'subhuman'.

Moving onto Deacon..
No, he doesn't. Whether to steal (most commonly), whether he's deranged, drugged, in need of a good rape session, or whatever else, it is not true that he "must have a motive" that involves retribution of some kind. So when you say, "..did you sack him the other week? Or did he find out you were having an affair with his wife." are you suggesting that retaliating by murdering a family is permissible or allowable? That the would-b victims should not be given the chance to defend themselves?
Well is it a regular thing for random, drugged up madmen (and women lets be equal here) to break into your house. When exactly was the last time a mad man broke into your house with a firearm? If it has happened has it happened more than once? The point I'm trying to make here is that sometimes, just sometimes the threat might not actually be there.

Fair enough with TDINTBL's point about say gang warfare. Even the most crime free Estates (estates = a built up area in a Town or City in the UK) sometimes fall victim to roving gangs comming over from a roughter area although now they tend to stick to their own areas.
Do you mean walking around or sitting at your office and being struck by a crashing aircraft? Because if you're referring to being the victim of a crime committed by a gun-wielding perpetrator, I'd LOVE to see some numbers on that. Actually, either way I'd love to know where you came up with that conclusion. FYI 9/11 would've increased the alleged gap, not decreased it.
And for your information I didn't say it decreased it I still said (with exaggeration I admit) that despite with 9/11 being and a crash in an Italian Skyscraper a few months afterwards being the only recent plane into Skyscraper crashes, it is still less likely that you'll die in a gun attack in the UK. I'll get some evidence for this..one day :mrgreen:

[quote[Ahh...the sweet smell of bliss. Guns are not to be combatted. Guns are a tool. Deluding yourself into believing that you can "control them strictly" by keeping firearms only in the hands of criminals is purely an attempt to suppress a symptom, not cure an ill. And I'll be damned if I've ever heard of an omnipresent and telepathic Police Service. [/quote]

Nor have I for that matter. But I have heard of HM Customs and Excise and the Security Services. In fact shall I tell you an interesting fact? Did you know that the only firearms that were smuggled into the UK from 1959-1979 actually came through Northern Ireland? And that the Irish Americans bought Armalites and other weapons, imported them into Southern Ireland and then got IRA Sympathisers to drive mini bus loads full of screaming kids through the checkpoints going into Northern Ireland. And guess where the guns were?

The same happened with the Ulster Unionist Paramilitaries. The Neo Nazis, KKK and other Far right organisations in America and South Africa imported guns into Liverpool where the same system was used to get them over the overnight ferry.

Most guns used today in gangland britain have come from Northern Ireland. The vast majority have been caught and destroyed but some do slip through.

Also while the cause is in the mind, the mind cannot do anything as bad as if it had the tool (i.e. the Gun) to begin with. Strict licencing and the insistance that guns are locked up at your local Gun Club mean that those who do have guns who go nuts don't have the tools to begin their orgy of violence.
...what? What does that have to do with anything? Didn't he then strip the people of their arms? [/quote}

*facepalms* how exactly can gun control be a major factor in bringing Hitler to power when the reason why he came to power in the first place was through the ballot box?! The fact is that he won enough votes to enter into a coalition government fair and square. Sad and sickening I know but thats the truth. Gun control didn't have anything to do with it and after he took power gun control still didn't have anything to do with him continuing his reign of power. The power of propaganda and brainwashing an entire nation were major factors. Thus isn't it a little silly to have Adolf Hitler's picture on the "Gun Contol works (just ask these experts)" poster?
I doubt it, especially considering the amazing support he had. However, they might well give them a hard time imprisoning them, making them fight in a war, or even murdering them.
Well he didn't have amazing support. He won the elections but he didn't have enough to impress if you know what I mean.

But at that time nobody exactly had the benefit of hindsight. In 1933, people expected the Elder statesmen of the centre right parties to control Hitler, humiliate him and the nazis and in a new cabinet him and the rest of the Nazis would be put out. Nobody exactly knew that in 10 years Hitler would have invaded Russia and was about declare war on the United States. Even still the fact is that he got in fair and square. That isn't a reason to go charging in and trying to stage a coup.
I'm not sure I understand the point of that paragraph. (note: referring to the point Pudduh made over Russia)
Right at that time after the October Revolution Russia was basically about 200-300 years behind the rest of the West. It was virtually a feudal society with peasants who worked for the local landowner who in turn owed men and funds to the Government in time of war. My point was that Stalin never needed gun control because the populance (the majority of which were liiving outside the cities) were too inept to even think of banding together and rising up to overthrow the Bolsheviks. In fact the Russian Communists rose up out of the industrial poor of the cities of Moscow and St Petersberg. There was little or no stomach in the countryside for such a revolution because they either didn't even have a clue who was who and what was happening or knew nothing else other than to till that field, grow those potatoes, make sure your wife bore a son and die at around 35 years of age. Thus to say that Stalin was an expert on gun control when the people - who while they were starving, etc - didn't exactly have a clue as to how to band together and even get ahold of a gun, let alone overthrow such an extensive totalitarian regeime as that! That sir was my point.
Were those guys being sarcastic or suggesting that the laws in place were not strict enough to strip the common populace of their right to keep and bear arms? (referring to Pudduh and his comments over 'that sign'
Just being sarcastic. :shock:
I don't know. Could be. Sounds like Ben. Of course, you'll have to connect the dots for me as to wtf that has to do with anything.
*rubs eyes* right the reason why I said all that was because he only saw firearms as a final resort and that final resort was warfare. He was not in favour of say people living in the cities bearing arms unless there was a real and direct threat of invasion by a foreign power. That what it has to do with..erm..anything >.>
So why write it in as one of the original 10 amendments to the Constitution? The gloriously hailed "Bill of Rights"? If the government had no interest in stripping its citizens of arms, why write it in at all? And if it were not considered a basic right, why not simply pass legislation regarding the possession of arms?
and then..
The amendment says nothing about the right to have the government give you free arms. It says that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, and that that right shall not be infringed. It certainly didn't sound like a temporary, passing whim.
Because the fact that they went through all the grandness of passing it as an amendment meant that it looked good on the PR front. You see spin wasn't invented by Karl Grove and Alistair Campbell back in 1997, it has been going along in one form or another since Roman times.

This was the assembled lawmakers of the land telling the people of the new nation that "yes we hear you". That "yes we understand your fears of the UK possibly invading again" and thus in those troubled times it told the people that they will be able to defend their farms, their towns, their cities and (most importantly) their nation from attack from the evil British.

Basically it was their version of spin. It was their way of telling the people that they really *beleive* in this enterprise of nation building and that this new Nation called the United States of America was no silly swashbucklying adventure. If you really want to be serious then you make sure everyone knows you are serious.

And what better way to make your fellow Americans know you are serious than letting them carry *any arm*, *anything* that could hurt, main and kill. It does not specifically say "firearms" it says "arms", the perfect way for people to jump start making militias in times of crisis when there might not actually be not alot of *fire*arms about.

And who knows maybe Congress had agreed that they would repeal the amendement when the danger was gone or that nobody would take notice and it would slide into obscurity.

In the end, if you are really that bothered. Why not change the amendment and add the word "fire" next to "arms" and thus we can all be totally sure what it means then.

I mean if you look in Magna Carta (which is still leagally binding by the way in the UK) it has a clause entitling people to bear arms and overthrow the Sovereign King and his government if he gets a bit too edgy. If that dosen't have anything to do with anything then I'm just pointing it out.
Well in your country it seems to be a problem. You may also have read about a case a few months back in London (I believe it was) where 4 men, at least one of them armed, broke into a man's flat and threatened him, to which he responded with a katana, stabbing one of the men in the belly before he managed to run them off. The criminal who was stabbed later died, and the man defending himself was charged and convicted of murder. If you claim to see the justice in that, there's no way I can have a discussion with you.
Really it has nothing to do with being soft on criminals or being liberal or any rubbish like that. It is a simple example of why the British Legal system needs an overhaul.

Basically imagine that every decision that a top court in every State of America (let alone the Federal Courts) is Legally binding and made into law. I mean not just make a president that weasel lawyers can quote when they're aquitting a Drug Baron on something or other I mean written down and entered into the statue book.

That is how it works here. In fact its part of our constitution. Judges make as many laws as Parliament does. In fact it can strike down law..randomly..and at will when a case comes in!

So basically Judges are more and more just interpreting the law. They don't look at the circumstances, they don't notice the bloke was about to be group beaten by 4 burglars, they didn't note down that he used the Katana in sheer desperation. He used an offensive weapon to kill, that is breaking the law = him being put in the dock. Simple as that.

Very, very, very stupid I know but thats how it is at the momment.

Also I say for the record that burglary and violent robbery has been falling for a decade now in the UK.

---

RIGHT! Done! Sorry I didn't quite get it in order but I answered most of your counter points. Please take it in turns to reply PLEASE and save me 30 minutes in replying to 300 other counter-counter points.
Image

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by Martin Blank » Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:58 am

James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 46:

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

That's a very simple backing for more than just a National Guard to have access to weapons. The numbers are a bit different these days -- we peaked at well over 1% of the population in the armed forces during WW2 -- but the positions are little different. No matter how many people could be put into the armed forces, there will always be more people outside of them that will be armed and ready to defend their way of life.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

BadMonkey
Redshirt
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 11:59 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by BadMonkey » Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:04 am

most of the gun that are being used in gang violence here also came through the same channels as the paramilitaries, especially now as most the old school bastards up the north have pretty much stopped even pretending to be anything other than glorified gangs.
We had a brief rise in gun violenceover the last two years, although it was mostly stemming from the same organised crime feud in Limerick city (which is very old ), which has been somewhat defused through the most prominant bastards being in custody or dead.
"Face it, you're two nipples away from being human."
Did you imagine the final sound as a gun? Or the shattered windows of a car? Did you ever imagine the last thing you'd hear as you're fading out was a song?

User avatar
peter-griffin
Redshirt
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 8:00 am

Post by peter-griffin » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:29 pm

Though I have to commend the grade-A excellent conversation that this has spawned, and I'm rather happy to see Martin's Constitution threads getting this kind of attention (since I'm too lazy to actually pay attention, myself), it still needs this stamp:

Image

User avatar
TDINTBL
Redshirt
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:18 am
Location: In search... of the lost chord...

Post by TDINTBL » Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:21 pm

Yeah, I wasn't aware that I "ressurected" or "necroposted" but I am happy to see some good debating, you don't know how long I've been waiting to find peolpe I could actually debate with, usually my friends either don't care or don't get it and get this highly glossed expression in their faces. I'm posting this right before breakfast, then I'm on the road to Oregon, won't be back till the 27th of July, have fun debating in the meantime, I hope I don't have to "necropost" in this thread to "ressurect" it again! Hahaha, take it easy people!
The Adventures of Hamster Man
Just because I'm paranoid means they really are out to get me.

adamjaskie
Redshirt
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 12:37 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Post by adamjaskie » Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:56 pm

Well, I guess something like this is less anti-necro than other threads. Its an official kinda thread, after all. It would be better to keep all discussion on the topic in this thread than having a new thread spawn every time a new gun control issue comes up or something. I mean, we do have a listing of all these constitution discussion threads stickied.
There ought to be limits to freedom. - George W. Bush

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. - John Adams

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. - Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
Pudduh
Redshirt
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:21 pm
Location: Harlow, Essex

Post by Pudduh » Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Right sorry Martin Blank, I kinda missed you and before I could do anything the connection went down so for your post...
During the same time, the murder rates in the US have generally dropped, with some slight upticks in the last couple of years probably attributable to the economic downturn, but nothing near the increases seen here. The gun ban has done little in the UK to ward off crime, and may have actually helped it.
Very true. It is quite true that the number of people murdered in 2001/2 was 831. However the number actually killed by firearms was 43 of that number.

This is a fraction of the 11,000 gun related deaths in the United States *every year*.

Also attributing the rise of the gun to the increased number of murders a year is quite simplistic. This has been going on for quite a while and you can see the same trend in most European and G8 nations (except Russia who *still* dosen't deserve to be in the G8 I think). Japan for example has been seeing more and more brutal and violent murders every year yet it has one of the lowest amounts of gun related deaths among all the G8 nations!

This is more due to the change in society and attitudes. More and more of those 832 murders can be explained by people being beaten to death in a City Centre street on a friday night after hours and hours of binge drinking.

More and more of those murders are actually hit and run driving accidents and road rage stabbings with car jacks, etc (once again you yanks sit in your car seat and use a gun, us Brits get out and rip that woman driver's neck open with a car jack ;) ).

More and more of these murders can be attributed to 'honour killings' by the UK's Asian communities. This is where an arrange marriage falls through when the wife to be refuses to marry and thus she has be either beaten or killed. Again we're trying to stamp it out.

It seems ironic that the last place of any values at all in the UK is Northern Ireland. This is clouded however by the fact that the IRA (which is STILL funded by Irish American groups on the East Coast) and the Loyalists get alot of their cash now from Drug smugggling and smuggling firearms into the UK.
Image

User avatar
Haggy
Redshirt
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:57 am
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Post by Haggy » Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:54 pm

I would just like to referr to the meaning of militia in the context of the secod amendment:

When It was written, the revolutionary war had not begun, and they needed a calling to arms, the way it is stated means, that all able citizens, that can be spared, are in a army, formal or not. after the war the threat of British rule was not far away(Canada), and the pouplation was small, at the time they needed every man that they could get, so the amendment stayed.

Historicaly, after the war of 1812, british rule was no loner a threat, but the amendment was still usefull.

The amendment is what allows the Draft, heck, the amendment IS the draft, it states that all people, after a number of restrictions, are part of the millita. So by drafting someone, you are not forceing them to join the army, but be "transfered" into another part of it. That is why the amendment is still written the way it is.


sorry for the necro thing.

To respond to what Pudduh said, its true that the U.K. has less killings by guns, but it also has a much smaller pop. Percentage wise, you will find that the numbers are very much simillar.

In canada there is a gun"control' law, it has cost the tax payers 2 billon almost and has done nothing but harass farmers, so if you were to instate a gun control law in the U.S., how would it be handled?
Eyyyyyyyyy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl (Research), Petalbot and 1 guest