PDA

View Full Version : Firearm Control Primer



Mekugi
29th July 2003, 09:09
AHhhh Yes the words of wisdom....


a. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

b. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

c. Glock: The original point and click interface.

d. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

e. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

f. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

g. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

h. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

i. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

j. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.

k. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

l. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.

m. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

n. Guns only have two enemies: rust and liberals.

o. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.

p. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

q. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

r. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

s. Criminals love gun control - it makes their jobs safer.

t. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

u. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

v. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

w. Enforce the "gun control laws" we have, don't make more.

x. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

y. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

z. "...a government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

larsen_huw
29th July 2003, 09:42
Russ,

No idea as to your age, but i'm replying as one of the younger members of the e-budo (20). I've never had myself, my family or my country threatened by conflict, maybe my views would be different if i had seen war first hand, or been in a situation where being armed could of saved my life. I've not had that much life experience, and maybe my views will change with time.

I can't comment on your political statements, i come from a country where gun control has been present for my entire life. There isn't the same 'gun culture' that exists in the USA. The huge majority of law abiding citizens in this country have no desire to own guns.

I can see that if you see something as a normal, everyday right (like you americans do with owning guns), that having that right removed (or threatened with removal) would have a big impact.

I'm not anti-gun, i'm anti moron. I see cars as the closest equivelent to guns, but cars are too damn useful to ban! So insted we have licence tests. With the biggest weapon everyday people use (cars), there are stringent checks to make sure that morons and cars don't mix. It's not perfect, infact, it's nowhere near perfect. But at least everyone gets basic instruction in how to responsibly use a car before getting a licence. Most people forget everything once they have the licence, but the lessons are still somewhere in their head. Imagine how many people would be killed if we didn't have driving tests.

I think a similar system should be implimented with guns. Anyone (within reason, minors, mentally challenged, certain convicted felons, etc. excepted) can own a gun, but before they are allowed to take ownership they must have lessons on the use of guns with a qualified instructor and have to pass a practical exam.

This idea of mine might have implications with the constitution in the USA, but elsewhere i think it could be effective.

Hopefully this would limit the amount of morons who come into contact with guns. Maybe have similar offenses to those with cars (being in charge of a gun while under the influence of alcohol.).

I might be young, naive and inexperienced at life, but i still have opinions! :)

btw, found c and q both funny and original. Did you think of them yourself, or are they established phrases in the USA?

Mekugi
30th July 2003, 00:25
Originally posted by larsen_huw
This idea of mine might have implications with the constitution in the USA, but elsewhere i think it could be effective.

Ohhh, you mean like Iraq?


Yeah, it works alright.


-Russ

David T Anderson
30th July 2003, 00:44
Originally posted by larsen_huw
I've never had myself, my family or my country threatened by conflict,


Hi Hew -- In the late 1930's when war was imminent between Britain and Germany, the British were woefully undergunned and unable to arm their Home Guard forces against possible invasion. The British governent appealed to the USA for guns of any kind and the Americans responded by donating thousands of guns to Britain.

[You can read all about the history of British gun control here... (http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Essays/David%20Kopel/The%20Great%20Lie) ]

larsen_huw
30th July 2003, 10:37
Sorry David,

I had meant to qualify that by saying 'in my lifetime'. The last time British soil was invaded was in 1982, when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, which all took place in the months leading up to my birth.

I am well aware of the situation that took place in the lead up and early years of World War 2. The UK had enough guns in the right places (the army, the navy and the RAF) for the citizens not to need to be armed. Had the UK got this wrong, and our armed forces were overpowered by the Germans, then things would of been very different, but they weren't.

Russ,

Can't see what Iraq has to do with things. Are you referring to their old gun policy, the gun policy put in place by the US or the fact that coalition soldiers are dying on an almost dayly basis because the civilian population had access to guns?

If you are referring to Iraq at the moment, i don't think you can compare a country with an occupying force in it who are fighting a geurilla (sp?) war against the remains of the old regime and where the civil and political infrastructure are in ruins with a democratic, 1st world country.

David T Anderson
30th July 2003, 19:45
Originally posted by larsen_huw
Sorry David,

I had meant to qualify that by saying 'in my lifetime'. The last time British soil was invaded was in 1982, when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, which all took place in the months leading up to my birth.


Don't be sorry Hew... I kinda forgot about the Falklands too.

Your views on gun regulation are eminently sensible, except that history shows us that 'sensible regulation' quickly turns into senseless bureaucracy and confiscation, as we've seen in Britain, Australia, to a lesser extent [so far] in Canada and even in some American cities and states. Consequently, people who respect the principle and practice of civilian gun ownership are staunchly against even 'sensible regulations'..resulting in a spiral of misunderstanding and mudslinging.

The problem is that the kind of rugged independance that tends to go with gun ownership is distinctly out of fashion these days, and is officially discriminated against in all kinds of ways...and that discrimination, as much as safety considerations, lies at the root of gun control efforts.

Vapour
30th July 2003, 21:14
I have to agree with larsen_huw here. Well managed gun ownership licence is probably the right direction for U.S. I don't hear much compaling about driving lincence anywhere including U.S..

Btw it is possible to interpret the 2nd amendment as the right of people to arm themselve as *militia*. As of liberty argument, If you think owning hand gun allow you to fight against modern army, foreign or domestic, one is very much mistaken. For that you really need to beef up citizen's milita which is probably closer to the original intention of the clause.

A. M. Jauregui
30th July 2003, 22:11
Bravo! Youji Hajime

Just my line of thinking, while I was reading this thread.

elder999
30th July 2003, 22:17
Originally posted by Vapour
I have to agree with larsen_huw here. Well managed gun ownership licence is probably the right direction for U.S. I don't hear much compaling about driving lincence anywhere including U.S..

Btw it is possible to interpret the 2nd amendment as the right of people to arm themselve as *militia*. As of liberty argument, If you think owning hand gun allow you to fight against modern army, foreign or domestic, one is very much mistaken. For that you really need to beef up citizen's milita which is probably closer to the original intention of the clause.

NONONONONO!

We've covered all of this before:

A 1982 Senate Historical Study of the 2d Amendment concluded that the 2d Amendment means everyone is supposed to be able to have guns....end of story.

http://hematite.com/dragon/senaterpt.html


The Surpreme Court, our ultimate arbiters on Constitutional matters, has consistently come down on just this side of all 2d Amendment cases in all of its history.

The Bill Of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, are considered to be a collection of rights guaranteed to the people on which the government cannot intrude. The court has ruled that it sees the words the people in the bill of rights referring to all of the people of the United States and that it is the same "people" referred to in the First (free speech, worship, press) as in the Fourth (searches, warrants) and Fifth (speedy trial, self-incrimination) as in the Second (right to arms).

Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that the government may not require a license to exercise a right. For example, the government may not require people to have a license to practice free speech, or to attend a church. Likewise the government may not require record keeping of those who practice a right or those who participate. Like the post-civil war era poll tax levied on blacks to prevent them from voting, the government may not require the people to pay any fees or taxes to exercise a right. This does not mean that any right is free from regulation or fees however. But the basic right must be unfettered. Claiming the government can't make you pay for a FCC license for a radio or TV station won't work, simply because the Court will remind you that you can retreat to a soap box or print up leaflets (or Web Pages!) and still exercise your right to free speech
You do not have a right to own a car, or to drive one. There is no constitutional guarantee for you to own or possess an automobile, truck, car, motorcycle, bicycle or even a skateboard. If any of these products were deemed to be illegal you would have no constitutional challenge under the Bill of Rights (except, perhaps, that of due-process before you must give up your vehicle).

With that out of the way, let's do a little comparison. First, let's think about registering guns like cars and licensing gun owners like car drivers. In the first place we'll have to purge a lot of useless laws off the books regarding firearms. Consider:


There is no waiting period to purchase an automobile.
Anyone can purchase an automobile as long as they can sign a legal contract to pay for it.
You are not required to lock up your car and keep it away from children.
People convicted of felonies or domestic violence can own an automobile.
Anyone paying cash can purchase an automobile, even if they're under 18.
You do not have to have a driver's license to buy an automobile.
The government does not have the power to inspect how you garage your car.
There is no limit how many cars you can own, or how many you can buy per month.
The government can't limit the features of your car, such as top speed, fuel capacity, horsepower, etc.
The government does not limit how many gallons of gas you can buy per month.
The only penalty for not registering your automobile yearly isn't a felony.
The government, except for a few states, cannot seize your automobile if you fail to register it.
You only need to register an automobile if you plan to use it on the street.
To obtain a driver's license you fill out a written test, provide a birth certificate (and/or INS papers), take an eye exam and a short driver's test to show you can operate the vehicle.
The fee for a license ranges from about $5 to $20.
Licenses are good for several years, some states renew automatically; others are lifetime licenses.
Licenses are only revoked after a court trial for misuse or violating the laws.

Are you still enthusiastic about it? You can see how many so called "gun-control" laws would be abolished by such a scheme. But we have not considered the opposite side of this question. Since you don't have a right to an automobile, the government can impose many laws on their ownership, purchase and use that cannot be applied to guns. But let's stick with guns for the moment and see what you'd have to go through.


Convicted felons could not own or drive a car.
You'd pay for a car, register it and then wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up your car.
Purchasing a used car from a neighbor requires the same waiting period and you would have to transact the sale through a licensed car dealer.
You could buy a car, register it but you'd need a special permit to take in on the streets.
To get the above "street permit" you have to show good cause and be of good moral character.
Persons convicted of "domestic violence" could not own or drive a car, even if that occurred 30 years ago.
Cars have to be stored where no child could access it and hurt themselves playing with it.
In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) you would first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain.
If you own more than a certain number of cars, the government could enter your home at any time to ensure you stored your cars properly. This is actually a proposed law by Handgun Control, Inc. that would require anyone owning more than 4 guns to have an "arsenal" license and permit warrantless searches.
If a minor child stole your car and hurt himself or others with it, you'd be guilty of a felony.
In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) you would have to store your car partially disassembled.
Failure to register your car would be a federal felony (prevents you from owning another one).
People under psychiatric care or mentally incompetent could not own or drive a car.
Some models of automobiles might be banned after you buy them and you'd have to turn them over to the government without compensation.
"Assault vehicles" look evil and must be specially registered at extra cost. Hummers, 4x4 trucks, Suburbans, Dodge Vipers, Nissan NSX's, and Corvettes are likely targets.
Cars under a certain size or having certain features could not be imported.
You could not modify your car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering.
The government would allow some states or cities to not issue licenses at all, for any reason.
Cars could not be operated on city streets with gasoline in the tank. (Kinda defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?)
In some states (e.g. Virginia, California) you could only buy one car per month.
There would be no traffic "infractions", all violations would be misdemeanors or felonies.
It would be illegal to directly buy a car from an out of state dealer or seller.
Car dealers would have to allow government agents to review their records without a warrant and without notice.
Car dealers who sell a car to someone prohibited would be charged with a federal felony.
Car dealers would be subject to being shut down by the government for failure to keep proper records and charged with a felony.
The inventory of car dealers could be seized and destroyed before a conviction was obtained.

This all sounds pretty silly, doesn't it? Most of these are gun-laws, applied to autos or drivers.

The first step in destroying a right is to control that right and make its use subject to government regulation and/or taxation. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan claimed that the government could tax guns and/or ammunition out of existence. Though I have a feeling that the Supreme Court would rule that plan an infringement on the exercise of that right, just as the poll tax infringed on the voting rights of the post civil war blacks. Imagine the outraged cry from the media if Moynihan proposed that people had to pay a $1500 tax each time they hired a lawyer - in essence, making you pay the government a royalty-fee for exercising your right to a lawyer for a criminal trial.

A license is permission from an authority to do something unusual or otherwise restricted by law. A right is something you have, like breathing, that the government does not give you. According to historical reviews, religious texts and our founding fathers, the right to resist a tyrannical government exists in all free men, as well the right to arms for the purposes of survival, defense of self and of the state. Don't be fooled by the way gun-control people twist the meaning of things however. The Constitution does not grant a right to keep and bear arms because that right pre-dates the Constitution and all other laws of men! The Second Amendment limits the power of the government to restrict or infringe on the right of its people to keep and bear arms!!

Once the government can require a license for you to practice a "right", then that right can also be denied to you by regulations, created by non-elected bureaucrats, to restrict your rights until it is impossible to obtain a license. Another way is to make the licensing procedure and paperwork so onerous that no one would want to obtain a license.



"It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.

"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The principle reason for the Secoond Amendment, however, as an examination of the Federalist Papers would show, is to enable the United States citizenry to overcome the government in the event that it becames necessary to overcome an administration that becomes tyrannical.

Vapour
31st July 2003, 00:24
I'm aware that current interpretation of second amendment is given to people as individual rather than people as collective militia.

I think, wording of the clause make it obvious that the purpos of second amendment is defence of people against tyranny rather than individual self defence. Whether that, in pracitice, should mean giving each invidivduals right to own hand gun or giving citizen's militia significant degree of military capability is the function of Supreme Court to decide. Of course, if the words "invididuals" were used in place of "people", it was clear cut case but that is not the case here.

Plus, as far as I know, the second amendment right is not universally given as right to free speech. Correct me if I'm wrong but aside from minor, ex-con are prohibited from owning guns. Plus, you could get fired from your job if you bring guns to your work place not to mention the fact that you can't arm yourself with uzi or bazooka and other useful weaponery which is practical necessity if one want to fight against tyranny. All of these restriction are in place because of safety, I assume. The same reason why there are driving licence so I don't see the reason why there can't be gun licence (which is not same as gun ownership licence). Just as one is require to pass extra test for driving truck, why not have different licence for different degree of weaponary for safety purpose?

Personally, I think Switzlenad is a good example of how this alternative interpretation are put into practice. Not only every (male) citizens are responsible to defend their country, they are trained to do so through national service. And incidentally, people do own guns at home but I think they are more than well trained to do so.

elder999
31st July 2003, 00:43
Originally posted by Vapour
I'm aware that current interpretation of second amendment is given to people as individual rather than people as collective militia.

I think, wording of the clause make it obvious that the purpos of second amendment is defence of people against tyranny rather than individual self defence. Whether that, in pracitice, should mean giving each invidivduals right to own hand gun or giving citizen's militia significant degree of military capability is the function of Supreme Court to decide. Of course, if the words "invididuals" were used in place of "people", it was clear cut case but that is not the case here.

If you look at the historical use of the word "militia" as well as examine the source documentation, such as the Federalist Papers, you would see-as the Supreme Court, and a special Senate study have-that the second amendment protects the individuals right to bear arms.Period.
"...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



Plus, as far as I know, the second amendment right is not universally given as right to free speech. Correct me if I'm wrong but aside from minor, ex-con are prohibited from owning guns. Plus, you could get fired from your job if you bring guns to your work place not to mention the fact that you can't arm yourself with uzi or bazooka and other useful weaponery which is practical necessity if one want to fight against tyranny. All of these restriction are in place because of safety, I assume. The same reason why there are driving licence so I don't see the reason why there is driving licence. Just as one is require to pass extra test for driving truck, why not have different licence for different degree of weaponary for safety purpose?

Just because it's so, doesn't make it right or Constitutional. It's also a state by state, jurisdiction by jurisdiction thing-like much of gun-control. Just as ex-cons' can have firearms in certain juiridictions-especially if they are not on parole, I can have a pistol here in New Mexico without any licensing at all.
As for the "practical necessity" of owning an uzi or bazooka to overcome tyranny, well, I'll let you have an uzi, take my sportsterized M1-that I sometimes hunt with-about 450 yards away, and when I've shot you....
....well,I'll have YOUR uzi, won't I?

As far as licensing goes, Hajime, I'm in favor of it within extremely strict limits. Part of the reason that I have a pistol is that any yahoo 18 or over can go into Walmart and get one. I'm also in favor of-and recommend-training in firearms for anyhone interested in using them. You'd be surprised how many people have guns, and never had the first clue about using one beyond "load, safety on/off, point and squeeze-sorry-pull." However, restrictions like licensing and training requirements also can serve to limit a right that cannot otherwise be practiced-and that's wrong. So is registration, for that matter. The only reason for gun registration is so that the government knows where they are when they come to take them away-in the event of martial law, for example, or some sort of disaster/emergency where FEMA is in control.



Personally, I think Switzlenad is an good example of how this alternative interpretation are put into practice. Not only every (male) citizens are responsible to defend their country, they are trained to do so through national service. And because they are trained to handle gun extremely well, they do carry guns at home.

Well, I'm in the US.I was born here, and I was raised to know what my rights mean, because they all have meant a lot to my family for a long time, and we fought hard for some of them.

Who gives a $hit how Switzerland does it?:mad:

Mekugi
31st July 2003, 01:40
WAiiit a minute here...

Wasn't I just lambasted for comparing policies and saying that Country "A" should do Item "B"? (which I didnt do...)

First of all, DRIVING IS A PRIVELIDGE, not a right. Pointed out earlier, there is no licensing on a right.

Someone thinking that "geez that is old law" is thinking wrong. Period. Absolutely NO-NO.

Besides, why does anyone blame in-animate objects for the actions of people?

Stab a Gun-Grabbing....make chopping up carrots a crime.

-Russ

larsen_huw
31st July 2003, 09:17
Russ,

You weren't lambasted at all. I asked you to clarify what you meant by your referral to Iraq as i didn't understand.

I then went on to say that based on what you said and my understanding of it, i couldn't see how it could relate to the modern, democratic countries we live in. If you would clarify what you meant it might help me to see what you were getting at.

Secondly, i understand that in the US you have a right to own a gun. That's why i said any licencing would have trouble in the USA. However, in many countries the citizens have no right to own a gun. This makes gun ownership a privalage, just like car ownership. Thus, a licencing scheme would be perfectly legal, and make a lot of sense.

Finally, i don't blame inanimate objects for the stupidity of people. Like i said earler, i'm anti-moron, not anti-gun. I am just trying to think of ways of seperating the moron from as many lethal objects as possible.

Mekugi
31st July 2003, 09:47
"I asked you to clarify what you meant by your referral to Iraq as i didn't understand."

CORAD article...very gooooood (http://www.coradpress.com/gun_control.htm)
Do a little research. Saddam Hussein disarmed the Kurds and then slaughtered them. Firearm control at it's finest.

Matter of ract, the US Military is imposing the same thing right now on the people or Iraq, calling it a "call to get the firearms off the street". It is the best way to control people. Period. I don't like that the US is doing that and it seems like a double standard....however...it is a way to keep people from fighting back now isn't it?

"Guns don't kill people, insane dictators kill people".

"Finally, I don't blame inanimate objects for the stupidity of people. Like i said earler, i'm anti-moron, not anti-gun. I am just trying to think of ways of seperating the moron from as many lethal objects as possible."

Ok, in that case let us talk about the number of automobile related deaths as compared to firearms. Licensing doesn't help stupidity- and the number of lawful firearm owners without crime, without accidents and without killing anyone outweighs the reasons to license anything considered a firearm. Police also make up a good portion of the "statistics" on people shot and killed. The Times Square Death Clock doesn't bother to tell you that. Should we disarm the Police? Stupid is as stupid does Forrest.


-Russ

larsen_huw
31st July 2003, 14:23
Woah,

Big article! Will have a proper read of it at home. Thanks for the link.

On Iraq my view still stands. The invading/conquering/liberating/whatever army of the coalition is in control(ish) in Iraq and there is no elected government. The country has suffered many wars and a 30 year dictatorship. It bares no resemblance to the country i live in.

As for the political side of gun control and dictatorship, i guess it's a question of trust. I trust Tony Blair not to slaughter us now that there is strict gun control in this country. Maybe i'm wrong. People in the past have been wrong, Hitler being the prime example. He was democratically elected, then took over the country (and most of western Europe!). People back then must of trusted Hitler when they voted for him, and it turned out that trust was misplaced. While i might not think Tony to be the best leader we've had, i don't think he's about to get genocidal on us.

As for the driving licences, imagine you took away driving licences. Anyone over the age of 16/17/18/whatever could get in a car and drive
without a licence, without any checks that they could handle the car responsibly. Senile old ladies of 90 and the mentally retarded would both be able to drive. Do you think we'd have more or less accidents than we do now? Licencing helps keep some people away from something they can't handle.

I have no idea as to the statistics, but i imagine if in the UK you took the number of accidents per car and the number of accidents per gun, rather than just the number of accidents involving each, the figures would be a lot closer.

Like i said earlier, thanks for the article, i'll print it off after work when no-one's looking :D , then take it home and have a good read of it.

Mekugi
1st August 2003, 01:47
Originally posted by larsen_huw
Woah,

Big article! Will have a proper read of it at home. Thanks for the link.

"On Iraq my view still stands. The invading/conquering/liberating/whatever army of the coalition is in control(ish) in Iraq and there is no elected government. The country has suffered many wars and a 30 year dictatorship. It bares no resemblance to the country i live in."

OK. We agree that the countries are different. However, do you think that there would been ANY chance of democracy in that country if the USA hadn't stormed in?

Now don't get me wrong here, I am not 100% for "the war" itself, but one thign I do agree on is that Hussein was a freaking monster and had these people in a death lock....and he used firearm control to slaughter people and control his huddled masses. Now, the USA along with other countries are doing the same thing to get rid of his "rebels". Now, given those facts...exactly what do you think firearm control is about?

"As for the political side of gun control and dictatorship, i guess it's a question of trust. I trust Tony Blair not to slaughter us now that there is strict gun control in this country. Maybe i'm wrong. People in the past have been wrong, Hitler being the prime example. He was democratically elected, then took over the country (and most of western Europe!). People back then must of trusted Hitler when they voted for him, and it turned out that trust was misplaced. While i might not think Tony to be the best leader we've had, i don't think he's about to get genocidal on us."
How can you be so certain that his law making today will not benefit some madman tomorrow? What about the next guy? Or the one after them? How far is your trust going to run? How much are you willing to risk? This are the exact ideas that the founders of the USA had and Britian has had a great history of tyranny.....that's where we got the idea of the 2nd amendment.

"As for the driving licences, imagine you took away driving licences. Anyone over the age of 16/17/18/whatever could get in a car and drive
without a licence, without any checks that they could handle the car responsibly. Senile old ladies of 90 and the mentally retarded would both be able to drive. Do you think we'd have more or less accidents than we do now? Licencing helps keep some people away from something they can't handle."

Well, in the USA driving in a priviledge. In your country, one of our basic rights is a privilidge. Go figure.

"I have no idea as to the statistics, but i imagine if in the UK you took the number of accidents per car and the number of accidents per gun, rather than just the number of accidents involving each, the figures would be a lot closer."

Anti-firearm groups have tried that before. Not true.

Like i said earlier, thanks for the article, i'll print it off after work when no-one's looking :D , then take it home and have a good read of it.

Mekugi
1st August 2003, 01:53
"On Iraq my view still stands. The invading/conquering/liberating/whatever army of the coalition is in control(ish) in Iraq and there is no elected government. The country has suffered many wars and a 30 year dictatorship. It bares no resemblance to the country i live in."

OK. We agree that the countries are different. However, do you think that there would been ANY chance of democracy in that country if the USA hadn't stormed in?

Now don't get me wrong here, I am not 100% for "the war" itself, but one thing I do agree on is that Hussein was a freaking monster and had these people in a death lock....and he used firearm control to slaughter people and control his huddled masses. Now, the USA along with other countries are doing the same thing to get rid of his "rebels". Now, given those facts...exactly what do you think firearm control is about?

"As for the political side of gun control and dictatorship, i guess it's a question of trust. I trust Tony Blair not to slaughter us now that there is strict gun control in this country. Maybe i'm wrong. People in the past have been wrong, Hitler being the prime example. He was democratically elected, then took over the country (and most of western Europe!). People back then must of trusted Hitler when they voted for him, and it turned out that trust was misplaced. While i might not think Tony to be the best leader we've had, i don't think he's about to get genocidal on us."

How can you be so certain that his law making today will not benefit some madman tomorrow? Even outside threats count- WWII being an example- the NRA sent firearms en-masse so the UK could protect itself on the homefront.(hmmm...) Ok so you trust the current P.M., but what about the next guy? Or the one after them? How far is your trust going to run? How much are you willing to risk? This are the exact ideas that the founders of the USA had and Britain has had a great history of tyranny.....that's where we got the idea of the 2nd amendment.

"As for the driving licenses, imagine you took away driving licenses. Anyone over the age of 16/17/18/whatever could get in a car and drive
without a license, without any checks that they could handle the car responsibly. Senile old ladies of 90 and the mentally retarded would both be able to drive. Do you think we'd have more or less accidents than we do now? Licensing helps keep some people away from something they can't handle."

Well, in the USA driving in a privilege. In your country, one of our basic rights is a privilege. Go figure.

"I have no idea as to the statistics, but I imagine if in the UK you took the number of accidents per car and the number of accidents per gun, rather than just the number of accidents involving each, the figures would be a lot closer."

Anti-firearm groups have tried that before. Not true.

"Like I said earlier, thanks for the article, I'll print it off after work when no-one's looking , then take it home and have a good read of it."

Really check that out. It is a well thought out piece, albeit a little extreme at times, it has a lot of good points.

-Russ

larsen_huw
1st August 2003, 09:01
Russ,

My personal opinion of going to war with Iraq is mixed, but overall i think it was the right decision.

As for trusting politicians, i'll trust them not to kill/enslave me until i see evidence to the following. In the same way we trust most of our fellow human beings not to be serial killers until we see some sort of evidence to the contrary.

As for the stats, i specifically said 'in the UK'. Unless the figures you have specifically relate to the UK (in which case i'm obviously very wrong), i would think that the figure in the UK would be much closer as there are far fewer guns than in the US.

Unfortunately i wasn't able to print out the article, we're being audited at the moment, and things like printer usage are being monitored. Got a floppy disk on me today, so will take it home and print it off there.

On the general subject, i don't think there's much more either of us can say without going round in circles. You've grown up with the idea of owning a gun being one of your rights, while i've grown up where guns are rare items (i've never seen one myself in private (non army/police) hands). We're both comfortable with what we're used to. I don't know about you, but i'm quite willing to agree to disagree with you. One thing i would say, is thank you for keeping the discussion clean. It was an enjoyable debate for me, and wasn't marred by anyone resorting to personal attacks.

Vapour
1st August 2003, 15:23
Well, if constitutional interpretation is strictly historical, only white male would be able to vote. Supreme Court has right to interpret constitutional clause beyond historical meaning. Such flexibility is given to the court for practical reason. Restriction on bazooka or other powerful weapon aren't considered as violation of 2nd amendment because Supreme Court interpret the second amendment far more strictly than the original intent of resistance against tyranny, which in my view is quite sensible thing to do.

That abotion case Wade is another case in point though I must say they did strech their flexibility too far. That matter should have been legistrated. I'm just pointing to you that, as far as wording of the 2nd Amendment goes, *people as militia* is a valid possibility.

Similarly, restriction of right on the basis of safety is valid legal ground to introduce gun licencing. I can't falsely scream "fire" in crowded night club despite my right to free speech. Similarly, you shouldn't own gun if you are danger to others and yourself despite 2nd amendment.

This doesn't mean that licencing will happen. Just that Supreme Cournt can switch their view if the want to. They just haven't. That is all.

captlid
2nd August 2003, 04:38
being a fellow peer, except that i am on the other side of the atlantic :)

I think it goes beyond the ability to acquire suitable weaponry to defend oneself with. In america the gun is a phallic symbol of freedom, much to the dismay of control freak groups like new york city politicians. (its where I live :( )
Its not just having a gun that makes one free, the person's mind has to be free. (correct me if I am wrong but most iraqui's have a few ak's at home even during saddam's reign, which kinda convinces me that they really didnt want to throw him over.)

History is just not on the side of gun registration, plus required military service smells like involuntary servitude to me. (the system in switzerland, though its nice to have a machinegun provided by the gov't to defend family with from home burglars :) )

in regards to cars, only a license is required to drive them on PUBLIC roads.

lidia chachanashvili

Vapour
2nd August 2003, 10:25
Iraqi did rebel against Saddam's regime many times and they were brutally put down by Saddam's army, the last big one being the Shiit one just after Gulf War I. I should also mention that people do own more than hang guns at home in that part of the world. This only show that context of 2nd amendment become largely irrelevant in the modern world.

Mekugi
5th August 2003, 01:50
Completely uneducated rubbish here.
R. Vs. W. is a different subject.

Let me clarify your "Supreme Court" reference. We've been there. We've done that. The meaning is EXACTLY the same as it was in 1776 as it is today. The only people who think otherwise are those who are A) not Americans and B) un-educated in the matter. Why haven't you figured that out yet?

The Supreme Court has the right to interprete, the people have the right to REVOKE the supreme court.
Get it?

"people as a Militia"...lesseeeee

How did that document start again...

"WE the People...."

You are fed the idea that the Government will take care of you, you can trust them.

Until, of course, they have you where they want you and just rip away your freedom.

Kudos...keep trying.

-Russ


Originally posted by Vapour
Well, if constitutional interpretation is strictly historical, only white male would be able to vote. Supreme Court has right to interpret constitutional clause beyond historical meaning. Such flexibility is given to the court for practical reason. Restriction on bazooka or other powerful weapon aren't considered as violation of 2nd amendment because Supreme Court interpret the second amendment far more strictly than the original intent of resistance against tyranny, which in my view is quite sensible thing to do.

That abotion case Wade is another case in point though I must say they did strech their flexibility too far. That matter should have been legistrated. I'm just pointing to you that, as far as wording of the 2nd Amendment goes, *people as militia* is a valid possibility.

Similarly, restriction of right on the basis of safety is valid legal ground to introduce gun licencing. I can't falsely scream "fire" in crowded night club despite my right to free speech. Similarly, you shouldn't own gun if you are danger to others and yourself despite 2nd amendment.

This doesn't mean that licencing will happen. Just that Supreme Cournt can switch their view if the want to. They just haven't. That is all.

elder999
5th August 2003, 01:57
...the people have the right to REVOKE the supreme court.

While I'm on your side in this, I believe this statement to be incorrect. Supreme Court appointments are for life.

That's how their rulings wind up confounding so many of the Presidents that appointed them....their's is supposed to be a position of interpretation and conscience.

That said-they have ruled time and again that the 2d amendment is for the "people" as in individuals, and they show no sign of ever straying form the precedents that their predecessors have set,even to the extent of refusing to hear cases that argue the opposite.

There is a mechanism for impeaching a Supreme Court justice, but it belongs to Congress,the representatives of the people, and is rarely exercised-Samuel Chase....and I dunno, Gerald Ford tried to get someone in the '70's while in Congress....

Mekugi
5th August 2003, 01:59
Keep reading. You'll find that a GREAT reason for that defeat was because they had a lack of arms, they were not "well regulated". HAND guns, or sidearms, are less effective than rifles, which have a longer range and higher caliber. You do realise that, no? Just where are you talking about? Where is "this" place? The USA?? The Second Amendment is irrelivent in the majority of the modern world BECAUSE the majority of the modern world does not have it- they are unarmed. Just a note, the majority of the modern world is not FREE and is subject to Tolitarianism and Tyranny. Hmmm....

However, in the USA, the Second Amendment it has been put to use in the "Modern World".

Again, look up why Japan didn't attempt a mainland invasion during WWII. You'll see why.

If you want to be defenseless and the subject of tyranny, be my guest- don't try to involve me.

-Russ


Originally posted by Vapour
Iraqi did rebel against Saddam's regime many times and they were brutally put down by Saddam's army, the last big one being the Shiit one just after Gulf War I. I should also mention that people do own more than hang guns at home in that part of the world. This only show that context of 2nd amendment become largely irrelevant in the modern world.

Mekugi
5th August 2003, 02:02
[QUOTE]Originally posted by elder999


While I'm on your side in this, I believe this statement to be incorrect. Supreme Court appointments are for [B]life

Notice.."for life".

Too early to line them up and shoot them, too late to do anything about them peacefully.

Just waiting until the next revolution happens!

Get my drift.

-Russ

larsen_huw
5th August 2003, 09:21
Russ,

One little point from those last posts of yours. You talked about the Japanese not attempting a land invasion of the USA during World War 2. You say this had something to do with the fact that most citizens were armed/had access to guns. The Germans didn't attempt a land invasion of the British mainland during World War 2 despite our gun control, and they only had 30 odd miles of English Channel to cross. They had planned it, but were unable to carry out their plan.

I'm staying out of any political talk :D ... don't really know enough about your political system to make any worthwhile comment.

Mekugi
5th August 2003, 10:25
Umm...that was not me talking about the invasion from Japan. That was a Japanese Officer talking. I can look the quote up if you want.

The same went for the Swiss, the people were ready to fight. Not just the army.

Also, by the time the 3rd Reich had positioned themselves and began their air attack on the British Isles, the Americans were in the war (Normandy, among the other theaters). The Germans had commenced bombing and were gearing up for a land invasion (remember Baedeker Blitz?) while they cut off the supply lines from the USA using their u-boats. The Battle of Britian was only the start of the German invasion into the UK via Das Blitzkreig, and it could have possibly ended the war. Invasion was only a matter of time. British were pretty damned lucky tzee germans headed East to Russia and that certainly took it's toll on the Western front. Remember hindsight is 20/20.OHHH and FYI...you may wanna look at this here:

Secret Army (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2833133.stm)

It would have been a different story if the Germans had gotten inside. They would have met the Militia....notice where the goods came from.

-Russ



Originally posted by larsen_huw
Russ,

One little point from those last posts of yours. You talked about the Japanese not attempting a land invasion of the USA during World War 2. You say this had something to do with the fact that most citizens were armed/had access to guns. The Germans didn't attempt a land invasion of the British mainland during World War 2 despite our gun control, and they only had 30 odd miles of English Channel to cross. They had planned it, but were unable to carry out their plan.

I'm staying out of any political talk :D ... don't really know enough about your political system to make any worthwhile comment.

larsen_huw
5th August 2003, 11:02
Sorry Russ,

My last post was worded slightly ambigously (sp?). When i said "you talked" what i should of said was "your post mentions". I was not trying to say that it was just your personal view. I guessed you had some sort of historical data to back it up. I'll try and be more careful in future, as i know that it's so much more difficult holding a discussion in print, where it is so easy to misunderstand and be misunderstood.

Again, this might be another misunderstanding, but i think you've got your dates wrong. You post says that by the time the Germans were ready to invade the UK, America was already in the war.


Also, by the time the 3rd Reich had positioned themselves and began their air attack on the British Isles, the Americans were in the war (Normandy, among the other theaters).

Operation Sealion, the German name for the invasion of the UK, was suposed to have been done and dusted by Spring 1941, before America joined the fight. While the USA was providing logistical support for the UK and some Americans were fighting for the British (Eagle Squadron in the RAF for example), there wasn't any official US fighting in the defense of the UK.

The Battle of Britain started on 10th July 1940. Planning for Operation Sealion started on 3rd September of that year, the Germans decided to put the invasion back until Spring 1941 on Oct. 12th 1940 after very heavy resistance from the British forces. Plans for the invasion were never restarted. Then on 22nd June 1941 (long after invasion plans for the UK were dropped) Germany invades the Soviet Union, starting their 3rd front, after the African deserts and the French coastlines. Then over a year after plans for the invasion of the UK were put on hold, 7th December 1941, Pearl Habour was bombed by the Japanese and America entered the war as a fighting force. The first official American forces arrived in the UK on 26th Jan 1942, almost 18 months after plans for the invasion of Great Britain were shelved.

All this information came from http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm#1939 if you are interested.

Oh, and if you meant non-combatent support for the UK, the lend-lease agreement was signed on the 11th March 1941, 6 months after German invasion plans were put on hold. I realise that there was much unofficial support from the USA before this agreement, but this was the start of the official help.

Sorry once again if i misunderstood your original comments.

Mekugi
6th August 2003, 02:22
All good bro. Thanks for the timeline, I get confused when I am just spouting.

-Russ

larsen_huw
6th August 2003, 08:57
It's cool Russ,

I couldn't of given you that series of events without looking them up on the internet! :D

While i'd like to think i could of told you that timeline off the top of my head ... i couldn't!

elder999
6th August 2003, 19:44
Originally posted by Vapour
Well, if constitutional interpretation is strictly historical, only white male would be able to vote. Supreme Court has right to interpret constitutional clause beyond historical meaning. Such flexibility is given to the court for practical reason. Restriction on bazooka or other powerful weapon aren't considered as violation of 2nd amendment because Supreme Court interpret the second amendment far more strictly than the original intent of resistance against tyranny, which in my view is quite sensible thing to do.

As far as the whole voting thing goes, it took a Constitutional amendment to give women the vote in 1920. In some states, non-whites didn't have the vote until 1965's Voter Rights Act,because of a sort of de-facto exclusion via onerous voting laws. Both took a lot of marching-protesting-from people who thought the way things were was wrong, AND an act of Congress-not the intervention or interpetation of the Supreme Court.AS far as the 2d Amendment goes-that isn't going to happen-trust me.



That abotion case Wade is another case in point though I must say they did strech their flexibility too far. That matter should have been legistrated. I'm just pointing to you that, as far as wording of the 2nd Amendment goes, *people as militia* is a valid possibility.

Similarly, restriction of right on the basis of safety is valid legal ground to introduce gun licencing. I can't falsely scream "fire" in crowded night club despite my right to free speech. Similarly, you shouldn't own gun if you are danger to others and yourself despite 2nd amendment.

Well, no, it's not a valid possibility. "People" means people-end of story. As far as "restriction of right on the basis of safety," well, we have laws that pretty much govern when, where and how you can shoot someone, or otherwise use a firearm, as well as more than enough laws that determine who can and can't legally purchase a firearm.While people can and do obtain guns illegally-and the majority of the crimes done in this country are done with illegal guns-the same could be applied to drugs that can be legally accquired that are illegally accquired.



This doesn't mean that licencing will happen. Just that Supreme Cournt can switch their view if the want to. They just haven't. That is all.

WEll, yeah-but they're lawyers-they consider precedent as part of their deliberations by way of training and procedure-and the precedence goes back to the years immediately after our Civil War.