Pleasant surprise....

[mkrishnan]

There was a flame war going on a little earlier about the ACLU and their notion of freedom of speech (i.e. they don't support religious freedom of speech). Anyway, not to re-ignite it or to call this news article decisive, but I always enjoy being pleasantly surprised:

http://www.freep.com/news/education/utica12_20040512.htm

BTW I'm not an ACLU member or particularly a supporter, but also not an enemy.

[blackfox]

Interesting...not that I think it should have come to this...it is only a yearbook quote...

BTW mkrishnan, not to be anal, but is that supposed to be "subtle" in your quote at the bottom? (where subtil is now...)

[skunk]

BTW mkrishnan, not to be anal, but is that supposed to be "subtle" in your quote at the bottom? (where subtil is now...)
Not to be a know-it-all, but that's the archaic spelling....and is correct. :rolleyes:

[blackfox]

Not to be a know-it-all, but that's the archaic spelling....and is correct. :rolleyes:
i no spel so gud, aniweigh...I stanned curectid...apreechiate it..

[skunk]

i no spel so gud, aniweigh...I stanned curectid...apreechiate it..
You are most welcome! ;)

[Frohickey]

i no spel so gud, aniweigh...I stanned curectid...apreechiate it..
Youse nid to go to skuul, get ahn educashun

[skunk]

Youse nid to go to skuul, get ahn educashun
No child left behind, huh?

[Neserk]

There was a flame war going on a little earlier about the ACLU and their notion of freedom of speech (i.e. they don't support religious freedom of speech).

That is a common misconception about the ACLU. Their only goal is to protect constitutional rights. It only *appears* that they pick on religious nuts because they are frequently trying to violate the constitutional rights of others.

[Frohickey]

[QUOTE=mkrishnan]There was a flame war going on a little earlier about the ACLU and their notion of freedom of speech (i.e. they don't support religious freedom of speech).QUOTE]

That is a common misconception about the ACLU. Their only goal is to protect constitutional rights. It only *appears* that they pick on religious nuts because they are frequently trying to violate the constitutional rights of others.

If their only goal is to protect constitutional rights, they are MIA in at least 4 constitutional rights.

[pseudobrit]

If their only goal is to protect constitutional rights, they are MIA in at least 4 constitutional rights.

They protect our civil liberties and often use the Bill of Rights as the cornerstone of their defense.

Which four are you going to say they're not protecting? I know you'll say the 2nd, but they don't agree (http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html) with you that it's being violated.

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"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."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

What are the remaining three, and are they civil liberty-related?

[pseudobrit]

Also, this is no "surprise" coming from the ACLU. Anyone who knows anything about the ACLU for real and not just what they think they know or what they've been told to think know that the ACLU takes up many of these types of cases where they defend individual right to religious expression.

[Frohickey]

They protect our civil liberties and often use the Bill of Rights as the cornerstone of their defense.

Which four are you going to say they're not protecting? I know you'll say the 2nd, but they don't agree (http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html) with you that it's being violated.

What are the remaining three, and are they civil liberty-related?

Remaining 3...

5th Amendment: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the ACLU observed the 5th Amendment, they would be on the side of private property owners against the environmental lobby that seek to prevent any development of lands.

9th/10th Amendment:

If the ACLU observed the 9th/10th amendment, they would be fighting for a reduction of federal power and an increase in states power.

[pseudobrit]

Remaining 3...

5th Amendment: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the ACLU observed the 5th Amendment, they would be on the side of private property owners against the environmental lobby that seek to prevent any development of lands.

They do intervene in cases of private property seizures. As far as development of land, there are zoning ordinances and in the same vein there are environmental restrictions. Neither are unconstitutional on the face.

9th/10th Amendment:

If the ACLU observed the 9th/10th amendment, they would be fighting for a reduction of federal power and an increase in states power.

Not an individual civil liberty issue.

[Voltron]

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

I don't recall which admendment gave us the right to bear cars?

[poopyhead]

I don't recall which admendment gave us the right to bear cars?

I don't recall there being an unlimited right to bear arms

[Frohickey]

I don't recall there being an unlimited right to bear arms

What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand? Writings of the era suggest that the arms indicated in the 2nd Amendment were the same type of arms that would be of use to a standing army or to the militia that would help support the standing army.

Even the last 2nd Amendment case heard by the SCOTUS (http://www.secondamendmentfacts.com/USvMiller.htm) states this as well.

I would put the upper limit of arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to be whatever the front line infantry soldier is using at this present moment. Back then, it was muzzleloading muskets and rifles, today, its M16 and M249SAWs. Tomorrow, it could be Type 2 Phasers and Light Sabers. :eek: :D :D

Thinking about it some more though, if more of us law-abiding citizens are armed, we probably would not need as much Defense Spending as we are currently spending. How much does Switzerland spend on defense? How many wars have Switzerland waged in the past 600 years?

[Frohickey]

They do intervene in cases of private property seizures.

Not an individual civil liberty issue.

Private property seizures by government, but what about private property seizures by lawsuits brought on by environmentalists? I would think the ACLU would be unwavering in its support for these causes no matter which group was the one doing the 'seizing'. (But somehow, I don't see the ACLU going against the Sierra Club.)

If all the power the federal or state government has comes from the people... and the federal and state governments have been becoming more and more powerful... from where are the new powers coming from? Sounds pretty individual civil liberty issue to me.

[poopyhead]

What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand? Writings of the era suggest that the arms indicated in the 2nd Amendment were the same type of arms that would be of use to a standing army or to the militia that would help support the standing army.



you may be correct but the constitution is an organic and living document. at the time it was written people lived in sparsely populated communities in the north and relative wilderness in the south in which a firearm was needed as much to protect yourself against your fellow man as against bears and other wildlife.
I am all for a right to bear arms
but
if we were to limit our understanding of the document to the mores and public opinion of that time then the US would be a much less free country than it is today.

[IJ Reilly]

you may be correct but the constitution is an organic and living document. at the time it was written people lived in sparsely populated communities in the north and relative wilderness in the south in which a firearm was needed as much to protect yourself against your fellow man as against bears and other wildlife.
I am all for a right to bear arms
but
if we were to limit our understanding of the document to the mores and public opinion of that time then the US would be a much less free country than it is today.

You really can't have a sensible discussion about this issue with Frohickey. He claims to be a "strict constructionist" where the Constitution is concerned, but his strict constructionism is limited to interpreting selected phrases in the way he'd like to see them interpreted.

[SPG]

Didn't the ACLU file a friend of the court brief on behalf of Rush limbaugh on his doctor shopping charges?
Oh the irony!

[Sayhey]

Is this a discussion about the ACLU and religious freedom? Or has Frohickey hijacked another thread for a guns rant? :rolleyes:

[Voltron]

you may be correct but the constitution is an organic and living document. at the time it was written people lived in sparsely populated communities in the north and relative wilderness in the south in which a firearm was needed as much to protect yourself against your fellow man as against bears and other wildlife.
I am all for a right to bear arms
but
if we were to limit our understanding of the document to the mores and public opinion of that time then the US would be a much less free country than it is today.
Have a problem with the constitution then make an amendment. Do not usurp it. Its only a living document when you have 3/4 of the vote.

[IJ Reilly]

Is this a discussion about the ACLU and religious freedom? Or has Frohickey hijacked another thread for a guns rant? :rolleyes:

Good call. I made the mistake of aiding and abetting.

[Frohickey]

Is this a discussion about the ACLU and religious freedom? Or has Frohickey hijacked another thread for a guns rant? :rolleyes:

It was about the ACLU and their selective protection of the Bill of Rights. I'm pointing out that if the ACLU were strident in the protection of the entire Bill of Rights, I'd be mailing them regular checks.

Besides, if you check the thread history, I made one reference to the 2nd Amendment which is an individual civil right, and is pertinent to the discussion. Its the ones that call the US Constitution a living organic document. How could a document open for interpretation depending on the era protect and guarantee civil rights? That's just like saying it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. :eek:

[IJ Reilly]

It was about the ACLU and their selective protection of the Bill of Rights. I'm pointing out that if the ACLU were strident in the protection of the entire Bill of Rights, I'd be mailing them regular checks.

When was the last time the NRA challenged a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds? Answer: never. Still, I suspect they get your checks regularly.

[poopyhead]

Have a problem with the constitution then make an amendment. Do not usurp it. Its only a living document when you have 3/4 of the vote.

the constitution is always a living document
and it was meant from the beginning to be so
see the 9th Amendment on non enumerated rights

[poopyhead]

Its the ones that call the US Constitution a living organic document. How could a document open for interpretation depending on the era protect and guarantee civil rights? That's just like saying it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. :eek:

It is up to the scholars on the bench of the supreme court to interpret the constitution. Whether they choose a 4 corners/plain words approach favored by Hugo Black, a non-interpretivist view favored by scalia, thomas, and rehnquist, or a interpretivist approach championed by Earl Warren, it does not matter, all are equally valid and all have both their strengths and weaknesses as legitimate methods for constitutional interpretation.

[Frohickey]

It is up to the scholars on the bench of the supreme court to interpret the constitution. Whether they choose a 4 corners/plain words approach favored by Hugo Black, a non-interpretivist view favored by scalia, thomas, and rehnquist, or a interpretivist approach championed by Earl Warren, it does not matter, all are equally valid and all have both their strengths and weaknesses as legitimate methods for constitutional interpretation.

Are you saying that only scholars on the bench of the Supreme Court are allowed to make sense of the US Constitution? If so, how is this system of government any different from a monarchy, where a King decides the laws?

This system of government, the one characteristic that made it unique during its founding, is *NOT* the democratic principle of self-rule, but the limitting of powers given to the government and the constitutional limits protecting/guaranteeing rights and powers to minorities or single individuals IN SPITE of the desires of the majority. Does it always work in practice? No. But it is still the overall goal.

[poopyhead]

Are you saying that only scholars on the bench of the Supreme Court are allowed to make sense of the US Constitution? If so, how is this system of government any different from a monarchy, where a King decides the laws?



I do not see the correlation between the Supreme Court and a monarchy.
The supreme court is made up on 9 individuals each of which interprets the constitution separately and votes according to their own interpretation on constitutional questions argued before them. This is in no way similar to the idea of complete sovereignty being invested in one omnipotent individual. The Supreme Court does not make laws, it can in some instances set policy but even in these cases their ability is greatly limited by rules of standing and jurisdiction. Further the Supreme Court simply interprets the constitution as it applies to laws created by congress. Thus laws arise outside the jurisdiction of the supreme court and are only analyzed in relation to the constitution by the supreme court when a case is brought before them.
To summarize
the supreme court is composed of many and not one
it only interprets laws in relation to the constitution
it does not create laws although it can in some instances set policy
its power is checked by both the executive (who has the ability to nominate justices) and the congress (who can impeach justices, fail to seat nominated justices, expand or contract the bench, controls the purse of the supreme court, and can amend the constitution so as to get around Supreme Court rulings)
the supreme court has not power to enforce its decisions unlike a king and has no power of the purse

I'm sure there are many more distinctions but these are the primary ones that come to mind

[Frohickey]

I do not see the correlation between the Supreme Court and a monarchy.

...

I'm sure there are many more distinctions but these are the primary ones that come to mind

But in saying that people, people like you or me, do not have any say in what the US Constitution means and that only the 9 robed ones do, doesn't that just put a whole lot of power into the hands of 9?

Lets pick an innocuous BoR... say, the 3rd Amendment. Doesn't it say that "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This BoR cannot be interpretted away by any of the 9 justices to allow quartering of soldiers without the owner's consent during peacetime. It is a concrete definition, not dependent on the meaning or interpretation of the justices. It is written in plain english, first and foremost for the people to understand what government cannot do.

[poopyhead]

But in saying that people, people like you or me, do not have any say in what the US Constitution means and that only the 9 robed ones do, doesn't that just put a whole lot of power into the hands of 9?

Lets pick an innocuous BoR... say, the 3rd Amendment. Doesn't it say that "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This BoR cannot be interpreted away by any of the 9 justices to allow quartering of soldiers without the owner's consent during peacetime. It is a concrete definition, not dependent on the meaning or interpretation of the justices. It is written in plain english, first and foremost for the people to understand what government cannot do.

First let me state that I am admittedly an elitist, I would never want the masses to interpret the constitution and thus limit my freedom and I fully support the investiture of great power in the hands of properly selected individuals above a tyranny of the stupid, inane, disinterested, and complacent masses.
Secondly nothing in the law is in plain words or stands alone, even rehnqist cites english common law from centuries past when interpreting the constitution. Let us not forget that the constitution is a document of compromise which even at the time of its framing was seen as having many interpretations by those who ratified it.

[IJ Reilly]

The essential genius of our nation's founders was in the way they divided the power of government into distinct but overlapped realms. They created a remarkably sturdy, three-legged stool which has stood up to all the abuse it's been handed for over 200 years. It's fairly shocking to me to hear someone who is ostensibly a conservative advocate essentially sawing away one of the legs of the stool, either because he doesn't understand its function, or because removing it serves some other agenda, so far unspoken.

[Frohickey]

First let me state that I am admittedly an elitist, I would never want the masses to interpret the constitution and thus limit my freedom and I fully support the investiture of great power in the hands of properly selected individuals above a tyranny of the stupid, inane, disinterested, and complacent masses.
Secondly nothing in the law is in plain words or stands alone, even rehnqist cites english common law from centuries past when interpreting the constitution. Let us not forget that the constitution is a document of compromise which even at the time of its framing was seen as having many interpretations by those who ratified it.

I guess that would make me an anti-elitist. I would not want a few select individuals to interpret the Constitution and thus limit my freedoms. Not only could a select few be tyrannical, but so can the 'stupid, inane, disinterested and complacent masses'. But there is more of a likelihood for the latter to be disorganized and in a state of in-fighting, that freedom-stifling interpretations of the Constitutions would not be acted upon. Not so for the former.

[poopyhead]

But there is more of a likelihood for the latter to be disorganized and in a state of in-fighting, that freedom-stifling interpretations of the Constitutions would not be acted upon. Not so for the former.

the court has no ability to make sure that their interpretations are acted upon, only the executive and congress, the two branches elected by the people one directly one indirectly, can enforce their decisions. This constitutes one of the checks and balances which limits the courts already very limited power. Thus, as it is now, the court interprets, but those charged with the power of the masses enforce, this is one of the reasons why Brown v. Board of education was unenforced for decades.

[blackfox]

I guess that would make me an anti-elitist. I would not want a few select individuals to interpret the Constitution and thus limit my freedoms. Not only could a select few be tyrannical, but so can the 'stupid, inane, disinterested and complacent masses'. But there is more of a likelihood for the latter to be disorganized and in a state of in-fighting, that freedom-stifling interpretations of the Constitutions would not be acted upon. Not so for the former.
Maybe I read your post wrong, but it seems that your own argument agrees with poopy...because freedom-giving interpretations of constitutions would not be acted on either...that is why there is no direct-democracy, only a representative one...

[Frohickey]

Maybe I read your post wrong, but it seems that your own argument agrees with poopy...because freedom-giving interpretations of constitutions would not be acted on either...that is why there is no direct-democracy, only a representative one...

Freedom-giving? Did I read that right? Freedom-giving?

Ho-boy, we are very far away indeed. Government and the US Constitution does not grant any freedom. Government and the US Constitution does not grant any rights? The only thing, the only thing that the US Constitution does is specify which powers are granted *TO* Government, and the reason for the granting of these powers *TO* Government (from the people) is to guarantee and protect the rights and freedoms already enjoyed by the people. That is it.

Even if the US Constitution and the US Government were to disappear in a temporal cloud of smoke via the use of an illegal time machine :eek:, people would still have a right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of press, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, etc. These are inherent rights of the people *GIVEN* to them by their Creator.

It might seem that Government gave freedom to the slaves, but that is an illusion. The slaves had the same rights as their masters, only that their masters were infringing on the slaves' rights. The only thing that happened is that now (after the Civil War and the Civil Rights era), Government was given the *DUTY* and *POWER* to protect and guarantee the slaves' freedom.

Actually, its kind of sad that the history of the US is the way it is, and that Jefferson could not pull through his desire to erase the institution of slavery. *IF*, if only Jefferson or at the founding of the country, slavery as an institution was abolished, we would not have had to fight the Civil War. (As a side benefit, all of these gun control laws would not be around either. The beginnings of gun control started after the loss of the South in the Civil War, as blacks sought to protect themselves from the Bedsheet Brigade and their flaming crosses. Research the history of the term Saturday-Night special (http://hematite.com/dragon/bans.html).)

[blackfox]

Freedom-giving? Did I read that right? Freedom-giving?

Ho-boy, we are very far away indeed. Government and the US Constitution does not grant any freedom. Government and the US Constitution does not grant any rights? The only thing, the only thing that the US Constitution does is specify which powers are granted *TO* Government, and the reason for the granting of these powers *TO* Government (from the people) is to guarantee and protect the rights and freedoms already enjoyed by the people. That is it.

Even if the US Constitution and the US Government were to disappear in a temporal cloud of smoke via the use of an illegal time machine :eek:, people would still have a right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of press, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, etc. These are inherent rights of the people *GIVEN* to them by their Creator.

It might seem that Government gave freedom to the slaves, but that is an illusion. The slaves had the same rights as their masters, only that their masters were infringing on the slaves' rights. The only thing that happened is that now (after the Civil War and the Civil Rights era), Government was given the *DUTY* and *POWER* to protect and guarantee the slaves' freedom.

Actually, its kind of sad that the history of the US is the way it is, and that Jefferson could not pull through his desire to erase the institution of slavery. *IF*, if only Jefferson or at the founding of the country, slavery as an institution was abolished, we would not have had to fight the Civil War. (As a side benefit, all of these gun control laws would not be around either. The beginnings of gun control started after the loss of the South in the Civil War, as blacks sought to protect themselves from the Bedsheet Brigade and their flaming crosses. Research the history of the term Saturday-Night special (http://hematite.com/dragon/bans.html).)
Look, I only meant that it can be argued both ways...leaving Constitutional interpretation up to the masses, would make it difficult to alter the current interpretation of Constitutional rights, either towards the direction you advocate, or any other...it would be difficult to have the government enforce and protect the rights and freedoms of the people, when they are unable to agree on exactly what those are...

[skunk]

Ho-boy, we are very far away indeed. Government and the US Constitution does not grant any freedom. Government and the US Constitution does not grant any rights? The only thing, the only thing that the US Constitution does is specify which powers are granted *TO* Government, and the reason for the granting of these powers *TO* Government (from the people) is to guarantee and protect the rights and freedoms already enjoyed by the people. That is it.

Even if the US Constitution and the US Government were to disappear in a temporal cloud of smoke via the use of an illegal time machine :eek:, people would still have a right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of press, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, etc. These are inherent rights of the people *GIVEN* to them by their Creator.
Nice exposition, FH. The last sentence falls rather flat, though. I mean, you could just as well apply that to the natives. And if it's a god thing, either your people are the Chosen Ones, or you must agree that ALL people have the same "rights" given to them by THEIR "Creator" (or Creatrix). Have we a President here who sees himself as Napoleon? Bringing Enlightenment and Rational Order to the unwashed masses and corrupt regimes of the East? Remember the Retreat from Moscow? It's coming.

[pseudobrit]

The ACLU made it very clear as to why they cannot fight gun control on consitutional grounds: it's all or none.

Either the document guarantees us the right to bear any type of arms, from knives to thermonuclear warheads without any type of restriction or regulation, or it does not guarantee such rights.

You can't pick and ****ing choose which types of arms you get to bear and which type you can't, because the document doesn't have any specification whatsoever as to what types you can and cannot own.

So, Frohickey, I must assume that as a strict constructionist who believes that the second amendment guarantees the unrestricted right to bear arms that you wouldn't deny someone who could afford it buying a nuclear weapon. Right?

[Frohickey]

The ACLU made it very clear as to why they cannot fight gun control on consitutional grounds: it's all or none.

All or none, eh?

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre... is that all or none?
Searches without warrants except when there is probable cause... is that all or none?
Using infrared cameras to sense excess heat coming for a house without a warrant except when there might be some cannibis sativa cultivation going on... is that all or none?

What if George Bush, Congress and the SCOTUS decide that there is cause to limit the movement of all persons to the point of requiring written passes and permission (ala Shogun-era Japan) in order to prevent terrorist attacks... is that all or none? (Courts already have the power to limit an indicted person's freedom of movement.)

[pseudobrit]

All or none, eh?

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre... is that all or none?
Searches without warrants except when there is probable cause... is that all or none?

Oops, those have Supreme Court rulings interpreting the amendment's scope. I wonder if the 2nd Amendment has any of its ownSupreme Court rulings (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174)?

The ACLU is being nothing but consistent with their mission on this issue.

But yet again, you've turned a discussion about something -- this time it's the ACLU -- into yet another ****ing ************ gun nut thread.

[zimv20]

But yet again, you've turned a discussion about something -- this time it's the ACLU -- into yet another ****ing ************ gun nut thread.
if the only way i could find to express myself was to wave a gun around.... i'd shoot myself

1st amendment protections are so much more interesting than 2nd

[mactastic]

All or none, eh?

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre... is that all or none?
Searches without warrants except when there is probable cause... is that all or none?
Using infrared cameras to sense excess heat coming for a house without a warrant except when there might be some cannibis sativa cultivation going on... is that all or none?

What if George Bush, Congress and the SCOTUS decide that there is cause to limit the movement of all persons to the point of requiring written passes and permission (ala Shogun-era Japan) in order to prevent terrorist attacks... is that all or none? (Courts already have the power to limit an indicted person's freedom of movement.)

What part of 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. do you NOT understand? :mad:

[Ozi]

"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. "

you americans are wierd... You have POLICE and the armed forces and the coast guard to uphold the security of the US of A. All that comes of citizens carrying guns is that they kill other citizens.

It is far better for no-one to carry guns, than to have everyone carry guns, to protect themselves from everyone else who is carrying a gun, to protect themselves... et.al.

Surely you americans can see the sheer stupidity of letting everyone own a lethal weapon?! Lethal weapon = tens of thousands of shooting deaths per year.

USA is a great and powerful nation, but it amazes me that you still let everyone carry a gun, and many states don't enforce seatbelts in cars. Its like the whole nation is trying to commit suicide!

~ozi

[poopyhead]

"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. "

you americans are wierd... You have POLICE and the armed forces and the coast guard to uphold the security of the US of A. All that comes of citizens carrying guns is that they kill other citizens.

It is far better for no-one to carry guns, than to have everyone carry guns, to protect themselves from everyone else who is carrying a gun, to protect themselves... et.al.

Surely you americans can see the sheer stupidity of letting everyone own a lethal weapon?! Lethal weapon = tens of thousands of shooting deaths per year.

USA is a great and powerful nation, but it amazes me that you still let everyone carry a gun, and many states don't enforce seatbelts in cars. Its like the whole nation is trying to commit suicide!

~ozi

unlike much of western europe we still have large wilderness areas filled with deadly bears, moose, and mountain lions. further we hold that the power of the government comes not from its ability to wield the sword but instead comes directly from the will of the people. we have always believed that the strongest deterrent of tyranny is a well armed citizenry willing and able to overthrow an abusive government. our right to bear arms it not so much to protect us from other citizens but instead to protect us from our own government of which the police and military are part plus we just like shooting and killing things, it makes us feel manly and alive. it was our arms that allowed us to throw off the yolk of the tyrannical english sovereign and this is a lesson we have never forgotten. most american gun nuts, with some good reason, beleive that the taking away of our fire arms leads to a slippery slope and is the first step towards tyranny and I would argue that with a president such as bush along with his right wing counterparts that this might very well be the case.

[Ozi]

then why isnt every other 1st world nation (where guns are illegal for citizens) now ruled by a tyranical and mad leader?

Surely all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK should be ruled by tyrannous people right now?! In fact, the British Police dont even carry guns, but their people arent oppressed. They aren't trying to overthrow their government?!

The US of A has fixed terms for presidents, and democratic elections (where on average only 20% of your citizens vote!) so surely if you ever were taken over by a tyrannous president, the other 80% of your population too apathetic to vote would get off their butts and vote that president out!

And what is the point of living in a democracy, if the majority of Americans don't care who runs their country???

~ozi

P.S: as for your "wild animals," Australia has huge tracts of wilderness with far more deadly creatures than you (snakes, spiders, cassowaries... etc) and we allow farmers to keep guns on their farms. We don't allow people to just keep guns under their pillows, however.

[poopyhead]

then why isnt every other 1st world nation (where guns are illegal for citizens) now ruled by a tyranical and mad leader?

Surely all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK should be ruled by tyrannous people right now?! In fact, the British Police dont even carry guns, but their people arent oppressed. They aren't trying to overthrow their government?!

The US of A has fixed terms for presidents, and democratic elections (where on average only 20% of your citizens vote!) so surely if you ever were taken over by a tyrannous president, the other 80% of your population too apathetic to vote would get off their butts and vote that president out!

And what is the point of living in a democracy, if the majority of Americans don't care who runs their country???

~ozi

P.S: as for your "wild animals," Australia has huge tracts of wilderness with far more deadly creatures than you (snakes, spiders, cassowaries... etc) and we allow farmers to keep guns on their farms. We don't allow people to just keep guns under their pillows, however.

I am attempting to support a view point that I do not quite agree with, but I will do my best

most of europe is run by tyrannical governments, one need only look at the high taxes, high gas prices, lack of massive SUVs, and the new EU in which countries relinquish some of their sovereignty for economic benefit. in fact the whole lot of western europe is nothing more than a nest of atheistic communists intent on depriving those who provide the most economic benefit of their god given profits so as to provide some lazy hobo with cradle to the grave health care and methadone treatments. we crazy gun nuts say no thanks. we will keep our guns close and stock pile our ammunition, there is a new world order on the way and as soon as a state healthcare plan is passed or the MPG on our SUVs is required to increase (the epa and tree huggers are one of the biggest infringers upon our rights to shoot eagles and eat endangered species) then the tyrants in washington intent on padding their wallets with our money will have a bullet between their eyes (we have good aim because we drink beer and target practice every weekend with our militia buddies so as to be able to rebuff the coming onslaught).

[takao]

And what is the point of living in a democracy, if the majority of Americans don't care who runs their country???


A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election.
Bill Vaughan

In America, through pressure of conformity, there is freedom of choice, but nothing to choose from.
Peter Ustinov

[skunk]

P.S: as for your "wild animals," Australia has huge tracts of wilderness with far more deadly creatures than you (snakes, spiders, cassowaries... etc)
Cassowaries????? You're threatened by CASSOWARIES??? Jesus! Scary stuff! :eek: :eek: :D

[Sayhey]

Cassowaries????? You're threatened by CASSOWARIES??? Jesus! Scary stuff! :eek: :eek: :D

My finely tuned sarcasm detector is going off! ;)

Given my familiarity with all the fauna of Australia I had to look up the Cassowary.

The Northern and Dwarf Cassowaries are not well known. All cassowaries are shy, secretive birds of the deep forest, adept at disappearing long before a human knows they are there, and yet unpredictable and perfectly capable of inflicting serious injuries on an adult human—deaths are by no means unheard of. Even the more accessible Southern Cassowary of the far north Queensland rain forests is not well understood. :eek: indeed!

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary)

[skunk]

:eek: indeed!
Oh come on! Cassowaries aren't THAT bad! It's those fiendish duck-billed platypi which really cause the problems. I wouldn't like to meet one of THEM in a dark billabong. :eek: :D

[Sayhey]

Oh come on! Cassowaries aren't THAT bad! It's those fiendish duck-billed platypi which really cause the problems. I wouldn't like to meet one of THEM in a dark billabong. :eek: :D

True, True! The TEETH on those monsters. Do not even think of approaching them without the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. :D

[IJ Reilly]

They skulk around in the jungle, they attack people without warning or provocation... when will we start our War on the Cassowaries?

[Frohickey]

if the only way i could find to express myself was to wave a gun around.... i'd shoot myself

1st amendment protections are so much more interesting than 2nd

Agreed. If the only way you, or anyone else could find to express themselves was to wave a gun around, its best that you shoot yourself. Otherwise, someone else might just do it for you. :eek:

If not the boys in blue, then someone else.

[Frohickey]

I am attempting to support a view point that I do not quite agree with, but I will do my best

we crazy gun nuts say no thanks. we will keep our guns close and stock pile our ammunition, there is a new world order on the way and as soon as a state healthcare plan is passed or the MPG on our SUVs is required to increase (the epa and tree huggers are one of the biggest infringers upon our rights to shoot eagles and eat endangered species) then the tyrants in washington intent on padding their wallets with our money will have a bullet between their eyes (we have good aim because we drink beer and target practice every weekend with our militia buddies so as to be able to rebuff the coming onslaught).

Its nice to see that the media-stereotype of the typical gun-owner as a beer-swilling overweight redneck militia member is not wasted on you. They spent millions of dollars trying to cultivate that stereotype.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_baaad.jpg

[Frohickey]

They skulk around in the jungle, they attack people without warning or provocation... when will we start our War on the Cassowaries?

That depends... is there oil in the land of the Cassowaries? :eek: ;)

[poopyhead]

Its nice to see that the media-stereotype of the typical gun-owner as a beer-swilling overweight redneck militia member is not wasted on you. They spent millions of dollars trying to cultivate that stereotype.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_baaad.jpg

It's called sarcasm
I figured most people could tell that the last bit was tongue and cheek
the beginning of the post was, however, quite close to what many believe

P.S. I'm all for the second amendment, I do think that the american people should at least have the option to be armed and should be allowed to buy weapons even some that are now illegal. I am not a gun nut though. There is a big difference between believing in a right to bear arms as I do and supporting the whole gun culture crap which is "beer-swilling (I'll leave out the overweight) redneck militia members."

[Frohickey]

It's called sarcasm
I figured most people could tell that the last bit was tongue and cheek
the beginning of the post was, however, quite close to what many believe

P.S. I'm all for the second amendment, I do think that the american people should at least have the option to be armed and should be allowed to buy weapons even some that are now illegal. I am not a gun nut though. There is a big difference between believing in a right to bear arms as I do and supporting the whole gun culture crap which is "beer-swilling (I'll leave out the overweight) redneck militia members."

Seems that we have something in common then. :D
Beer is awful. Now, sushi and sake, I would partake. :D

[skunk]

That depends... is there oil in the land of the Cassowaries? :eek: ;)
What d'you think they're trying to protect by killing all those intruders??? "Cassowary" is the aboriginal word for "sticky black stuff that just pours out of the ground but which we have no use for ourselves and wish somebody with the technology would just come and take it off our hands".

[Sayhey]

What d'you think they're trying to protect by killing all those intruders??? "Cassowary" is the aboriginal word for "sticky black stuff that just pours out of the ground but which we have no use for ourselves and wish somebody with the technology would just come and take it off our hands".

I never knew the aboriginal people of Australia had such an expressive language. Imagine all of that with one word! ;)

[skunk]

I never knew the aboriginal people of Australia had such an expressive language. Imagine all of that with one word! ;)
I know. It's uncanny. Makes our language seem positively florid! :D

[Ozi]

My finely tuned sarcasm detector is going off! ;)

Given my familiarity with all the fauna of Australia I had to look up the Cassowary.

:eek: indeed!

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary)
LMAO!

And you can, in fact, extract oil from the cassowary for medicinal and theraputic purposes. However, the cassowary gets pretty pissed when you try, so we mainly get emu oil (http://www.emuoilsource.com/) instead: the emu being a close relative of the cassowary, and also the african-dwelling Rhea.

But enough about that!

I understand the "need to protect yourselves" is a big one. However, I feel it makes more sense for no-one to own a gun, and then no-one needs a gun to protect themselves! And in Australia, you can own a gun if you live on a farm, or are a proffedional or recreational hunter/shooter. There are just very strict guidelines regarding how it must be kept, and who can own one. If you live on a farm of a couple of million hectares, you need a gun to put down livestock, as protection from crocs or wild boars, and to shoot foxes and roos (and other pests) with. This is called using the gun for reasons of practicality.

What we don't allow in Australia is the buying of guns over a counter, or the keeping of a gun loose around the house (ie. not in a locked cabinet) or having guns anywhere that a child can get hold of it, and accidentaly shoot themsleves in the head. In the US of A, an average of 12 school aged children die EVERY DAY, killed by guns. This is a phenomenally high number, and if it doesnt ring alarm bells for you americans, you need your heads checked.

Oh and the platypus actually IS deadly... not from its "HUGE FANGS!" :D but from the poisonous spines (http://www.rochedalss.eq.edu.au/rdale/platypus.htm) in the male platyus' rear feet.

~ozi

[skunk]

Oh and the platypus actually IS deadly... not from its "HUGE FANGS!" :D but from the poisonous spines (http://www.rochedalss.eq.edu.au/rdale/platypus.htm) in the male platyus' rear feet.

~ozi
That would explain the low incidence of male homosexuality among the Platypus population, then. :D

[Frohickey]

I understand the "need to protect yourselves" is a big one. However, I feel it makes more sense for no-one to own a gun, and then no-one needs a gun to protect themselves!


What do you have against the elderly and women that you would like to see them victimized by stronger people?

[skunk]

What do you have against the elderly and women that you would like to see them victimized by stronger people?
Why do you post such ludicrous non-sequiturs?

[Ozi]

I agree with the above! it is a ludicrous attempt at a sentence... :confused:

Im saying that a) elderly people aren't always the most sane people to be wielding 12 guage shotguns or Magnums, and b) the stronger people won't have guns to victimise them with, whilst the police will. Therefore, the police will have a higher degree of power over these "stronger people," and this will act as a disensentive against criminal behaviour.

Finally, it REALLY s***s me that you group "women" as victims of "stronger people." I know many women physically stronger than me (a guy who goes to the gym a lot) and it is incredibly, blantantly sexist to suggest women NEED lethal firearms to protect themselves. :mad:

~ozi

[poopyhead]

Seems that we have something in common then. :D
Beer is awful. Now, sushi and sake, I would partake. :D
finally :rolleyes:
although I like beer as long as its wheat and I made it myself
or
if it is real lambic
or pabst

[poopyhead]

I agree with the above! it is a ludicrous attempt at a sentence... :confused:

Im saying that a) elderly people aren't always the most sane people to be wielding 12 guage shotguns or Magnums, and b) the stronger people won't have guns to victimise them with, whilst the police will. Therefore, the police will have a higher degree of power over these "stronger people," and this will act as a disensentive against criminal behaviour.

Finally, it REALLY s***s me that you group "women" as victims of "stronger people." I know many women physically stronger than me (a guy who goes to the gym a lot) and it is incredibly, blantantly sexist to suggest women NEED lethal firearms to protect themselves. :mad:

~ozi

the problem is you are relying on criminals to obey the law in order to guarantee the safety of the majority law abiding population
Here in the US of A we outlawed heroine, marijuana, and cocaine quite some time ago, I mean no one is allowed to have it, unfortunately criminals never gave up their stashes in fact criminal empires have arisen from the ban which only seems to effect law abiding citizens. I am not saying guns and drugs have anything truly in common except that both if/when made illegal will still be readily available and both will or have led to black markets which, at least for drugs, are far more dangerous than what was sought to outlaw.
basically if we were to outlaw guns then criminal will simply use them against the unarmed masses making them easier and safer targets for their deviant lusts.

[Ozi]

basically if we were to outlaw guns then criminal will simply use them against the unarmed masses making them easier and safer targets for their deviant lusts.

deviant lusts? sounds like a naughty website to me! :P

yes, criminals will still get guns. However, what I have real concerns with is teenagers being able to pick up their dads guns from a bedside drawer, and on a whim, shoot themsleves, or even worse, go and shoot other people. Or 12 year old kids taking loaded weapons to school for "show and tell" with their class. Or old ladies shooting lifetime members by accident, because she thought he was a burgler. Or in a fit of road rage, one person shooting another, not because of any deviant lust, but instead because he got mad, and there just happened to be a gun on hand. Or 6 year old kids playing with guns they found about the house whilst their parents where out shopping, and shooting themselves in the head whilst playing with their newly-found "toy."

It is not the fact that criminals have guns which worries me so much; it is the total saturation of guns within the American household, and the thousand of innocent people killed each year through "accidents."

Why not ban the guns, and make the average household safer for children and innocent civilians?

~ozi

Oh and yes a blackmarket for guns will arise, but how will that be any worse than what you have now, where any gun shop will sell an adult a gun and ammo over the counter? You have almost no regulation on gun ownership at the moment, so its remarkably similar to a "blackmarket" already. :mad:

[Voltron]

It depends on the 12 year old. As a kid I use to pick up a gun and go hunting refrigerators or junk cars out in the woods whenever I was bored. When the neighbors accross the street went months with an overloaded septic tank and no running water I would go with their kids to Lake Crystal and take turns standing gator guard with a 12 gauge shotgun as they bathed. But I was taught the lethality of the weapons and would never use a gun on someone except in self defense. And then only if lethal means was necessary. Once at the age of 16 I was armed and jumped by a guy with a knife. Instead of shooting him I dropped the rifle picked up a branch and knocked the crap out of him. Shooting him never entered my mind untill afterwards when I bent over to pick up the gun and realized I never even thought of the option. Course I knew before hand he wasn't actually out to kill me he was a so called friend who was upset at something I said to him at school the day before, probably would've just taken a little slice and tried to scare me a bit.

It all depends on how you are raised. Those who have guns in their households have a greater responsibility of training their children to be responsible individuals. Something everyone should be teaching their kids.

[poopyhead]

deviant lusts? sounds like a naughty website to me! :P

yes, criminals will still get guns. However, what I have real concerns with is teenagers being able to pick up their dads guns from a bedside drawer, and on a whim, shoot themsleves, or even worse, go and shoot other people. Or 12 year old kids taking loaded weapons to school for "show and tell" with their class. Or old ladies shooting lifetime members by accident, because she thought he was a burgler. Or in a fit of road rage, one person shooting another, not because of any deviant lust, but instead because he got mad, and there just happened to be a gun on hand. Or 6 year old kids playing with guns they found about the house whilst their parents where out shopping, and shooting themselves in the head whilst playing with their newly-found "toy."

It is not the fact that criminals have guns which worries me so much; it is the total saturation of guns within the American household, and the thousand of innocent people killed each year through "accidents."

Why not ban the guns, and make the average household safer for children and innocent civilians?

~ozi




many gun toaters feel that it is improper to ban guns simply because some people are idiots, we should not have to create laws to protect the lowest common denominator. there will always be stupid people and there will always be victims of stupid people, it is a sad fact, but this should not lead to the abridging of another's rights.

Oh and yes a blackmarket for guns will arise, but how will that be any worse than what you have now, where any gun shop will sell an adult a gun and ammo over the counter? You have almost no regulation on gun ownership at the moment, so its remarkably similar to a "blackmarket" already. :mad:

if a true black market arises then prices will skyrocket leaving the average citizen unable to affordably procure a weapon leading to an armed and an unarmed class, the armed class having a greater concentration of wealth than the unarmed class (as evidenced by their weapons). if you apply the idea of dialectic materialism to this situation you will see that this can only end with a class struggle that leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat and finally the end of history. In the end it all comes down to ungodly communism or a warm gun. :D

[Sayhey]

Oh and the platypus actually IS deadly... not from its "HUGE FANGS!" :D but from the poisonous spines (http://www.rochedalss.eq.edu.au/rdale/platypus.htm) in the male platyus' rear feet.

~ozi

OK, not to derail this thread too much, but do you folks "down under" have some kind of monopoly on poisonous animals? You all must be the microsoft of venom. Here I thought I was making a harmless monty python allusion and I find out even the platypus has spines that can kill you. It is a wonder they don't put this all in the travel brochures. :eek:

[Ozi]

yup.... the "cuddly" koala actually sleeps 23 hours a day, pisses and stinks when you try to cuddle it, and has huge claws, and a permanently bad temper because it has to digest toxic eucalyptus leaves.

The Kangaroo can rip your guts out by leaning back on its tail and using its huge feet to slash at your abdomen. The wombat can write of your car if you run into one, and we have more nasty snakes and spiders than you can poke an echidna at. So yeah, you kill each other with guns, we die from living in a country full of creatures hell-bent on our death. LOL :D

[Neserk]

yup.... the "cuddly" koala actually sleeps 23 hours a day, pisses and stinks when you try to cuddle it, and has huge claws, and a permanently bad temper because it has to digest toxic eucalyptus leaves.

The Kangaroo can rip your guts out by leaning back on its tail and using its huge feet to slash at your abdomen. The wombat can write of your car if you run into one, and we have more nasty snakes and spiders than you can poke an echidna at. So yeah, you kill each other with guns, we die from living in a country full of creatures hell-bent on our death. LOL :D

No wonder my husband doesn't want to visit... I thought it was just the bugs...

[Ozi]

if a true black market arises then prices will skyrocket leaving the average citizen unable to affordably procure a weapon leading to an armed and an unarmed class, the armed class having a greater concentration of wealth than the unarmed class (as evidenced by their weapons). if you apply the idea of dialectic materialism to this situation you will see that this can only end with a class struggle that leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat and finally the end of history. In the end it all comes down to ungodly communism or a warm gun. :D

OK i know some of what you say is tongue-in-cheek, but there are serious flaws in your argument.

Yousay that banning weapons in the US of A will lead to a black market, and ultimately the triumph of communists. Ignoring how silly that is, the simple fact is this: Why haven't all the other 1st world countries who ban guns not now consumed by the aforesaid Black market? Why has "history" not ended yet? :D

If countries like Australia, England, hell even China and Cuba can put restraints on gun control and not descend into a spiral of ramantly materialistic martial law, why can't the US also impose these controls?

I think that it would be fairly easy for you to do this. However, sadly the gun lobby is so strong, and contributes so much money to political parties, that no polititian will be able to start effective gun control any time soon. And thats the sad truth.

~ozi

[IJ Reilly]

So yeah, you kill each other with guns, we die from living in a country full of creatures hell-bent on our death. LOL :D

Do you think maybe they're trying to tell you something? I mean, whatever it is, it seems to be unanimous.

[Ozi]

yeah maybe you're right... i think they probably don't like our beer and want to evict us and our "cats piss" VB and XXXX beer. :D

[Voltron]

Actually Poopyhead hit the nail on the head and its got very little to do with communism.
the problem is you are relying on criminals to obey the law in order to guarantee the safety of the majority law abiding population
Here in the US of A we outlawed heroine, marijuana, and cocaine quite some time ago, I mean no one is allowed to have it, unfortunately criminals never gave up their stashes in fact criminal empires have arisen from the ban which only seems to effect law abiding citizens. I am not saying guns and drugs have anything truly in common except that both if/when made illegal will still be readily available and both will or have led to black markets which, at least for drugs, are far more dangerous than what was sought to outlaw.
basically if we were to outlaw guns then criminal will simply use them against the unarmed masses making them easier and safer targets for their deviant lusts.

[Frohickey]

...
b) the stronger people won't have guns to victimise them with, whilst the police will. Therefore, the police will have a higher degree of power over these "stronger people," and this will act as a disensentive against criminal behaviour.

Finally, it REALLY s***s me that you group "women" as victims of "stronger people." I know many women physically stronger than me (a guy who goes to the gym a lot) and it is incredibly, blantantly sexist to suggest women NEED lethal firearms to protect themselves. :mad:

~ozi

Okay, let us say that you are correct that armed police will have a higher degree of power over these "stronger people" (criminals), and this will act as a disincentive against criminal behavior, answer me this. How are you going to ensure that the disincentive (armed police) will be available at every moment? Put an armed cop at every street corner???

Better to have the disincentive be 'the potential armed citizen who underwent a background check and has a concealed carry permit'. The 'stronger people' (criminals) are usually adept at spotting armed uniformed police. Much harder to spot the 'armed citizen', especially if the 'armed citizen' is carrying concealed (like in 34 out of 50 states).

Finally, it is a fact of nature that human females, as a group, are not as strong, physically than human males, especially in upper body strength. What would your solution be? It is not 'incredibly blatantly sexist' to say that women are more likely to be victimized because of their inherent weakness in upper body strength.

If I were a woman, I would like to have more upper body strength, but then, I probably wouldn't go on as many dates. So, the 2nd next best thing would be to equipped with gun, and be on equal footing, or slightly in my favor when 'stronger people' (criminals) come a calling. (The next best thing would be a boyfriend/husband/significant other that is willing and able to protect me. This applies to men as well.)

[Frohickey]

yes, criminals will still get guns. However, what I have real concerns with is teenagers being able to pick up their dads guns from a bedside drawer, and on a whim, shoot themsleves, or even worse, go and shoot other people.
Crime#1 Minor in possession of a gun
Crime#2 Unsafe storage of a gun
Crime#3 Suicide
or
Crime#1 Minor in possession of a gun
Crime#2 Unsafe storage of a gun
Crime#3 Assault with a Deadly Weapon/Murder
Crime#4 Discharge of firearms within city limits

Or 12 year old kids taking loaded weapons to school for "show and tell" with their class.
Crime#1 Minor in possession of a gun
Crime#2 Possession of a gun in school premises
Crime#3 Unsafe storage of gun

Or old ladies shooting lifetime members by accident, because she thought he was a burgler.
Crime#1 Negligent discharge of firearm
Crime#2 Assault with a deadly weapon/Murder
...or if there really was a burglar...
Outstanding citizen of the month award for Grandma Walton :D :D

Or in a fit of road rage, one person shooting another, not because of any deviant lust, but instead because he got mad, and there just happened to be a gun on hand.
Crime#1 Negligent discharge of firearm
Crime#2 Assault with a deadly weapon/Murder

Or 6 year old kids playing with guns they found about the house whilst their parents where out shopping, and shooting themselves in the head whilst playing with their newly-found "toy."
Crime#1 Unsafe storage of a gun
Crime#2 Child abandonment/Improper supervision of children

It is not the fact that criminals have guns which worries me so much; it is the total saturation of guns within the American household, and the thousand of innocent people killed each year through "accidents."

The Swiss have a total saturation of guns within the Swiss household. You do not see thousands or even hundreds of innocent people killed each year through "accidents".

When you ban an object, you place an aura of mystique around the object, that might be undeserved. If we can teach children the proper safe handling of household toxins such as bleach and paints, you can surely teach children the proper safe handling of firearms. Teach them young, teach them to have the proper respect, and when they grow up, they are unlikely to be involved in gun 'accidents'.

[blackfox]

How this switched from a thread about the ACLU and Religion to another Gun Control/2nd amendment thread is beyond me (although I did enjoy the aside that confirmed my long-held irrational(used to be)fears of Australia...I wonder if the other continents purposely moved it away to one corner...as far as the Gun issue *sigh*, well...I am not sure...I do agree with Frohicky that if guns were illegal, an unarmed populace would be relatively defenseless against armed criminals (via black market). On the other hand, under such a reality, a person could theoretically have as much access to a gun as a criminal, although they would also become a criminal by possessing it. A stronger point can be made that if guns were illegal, the black market price could be so high as to be prohibitively expensive to all but the relatively wealthy, leaving the poorer and stupider street thugs to lesser weapons. It is my assumption that it is this class of criminals, that causes the most casual street crime (home invasion, carjacking, mugging). It seems relatively unlikely that as many would posess guns as do currently, as the risk and cost will weed out the amateur/petty element. If a mugger had money, he/she probably woudn't need to mug someone. Another debatable point is how effective a gun might be to a potential victim in a real situation. Even if they were properly trained in handgun usage, in the heat of the moment they might panic, rendering them ineffective, or possibly giving up the gun to the assailant through ineptiude...or by firing blindly, possibly injuring innocent parties. I cannot say how relevant those scenarios might be to reality, however. The biggest problem I have with guns, is not with them, but with them being used and available to lay people in the fear-soaked climate we live in (thanks local news)...people who are afraid, are often poor judges of the situation and this can contribute to unneccessary death and injury...which will be covered on the local news, perpetuating the cycle.
Generally though, this is a moot argument, as the gun lobby is powerful enough to forstall any political changes, and you would have a hell of a time getting guns away from current owners. These things coupled with the increase in court time/incarceration for those whose only crime is a possesion of a gun (increasing costs to Gov and taxpayers), mean guns are here to stay...anyway, it is impossible to argue with people like Frohicky on this matter, as they are probably responsible gun owners, and from their point of view, they see no problem...although I wonder about those so blase about ending an individuals' life...Que Cera Cera...

[Ozi]

When you ban an object, you place an aura of mystique around the object, that might be undeserved. If we can teach children the proper safe handling of household toxins such as bleach and paints, you can surely teach children the proper safe handling of firearms. Teach them young, teach them to have the proper respect, and when they grow up, they are unlikely to be involved in gun 'accidents'.

Ok thats all very well and good... But we teach our children not to smoke, as it is proven to increase your risk of cancer. Many young people still smoke. We teach our children to drive safely. Many young people still die on the roads whilst "hooning" with their mates. Just because we "teach children the proper safe handling" of cars, doesnt mean they don't die in stupid, avoidable accidents.

Likewise, you can teach children respect of guns, but you cannot ensure they wont be rebellious and disobey this lesson. The only true way to take away this risk, is to ensure they cannot get access to a weapon.

[takao]

The Swiss have a total saturation of guns within the Swiss household. You do not see thousands or even hundreds of innocent people killed each year through "accidents".

i think i already said this...
1. every swiss man who has an aussault gun at home (_not_ everybody has one) was in the swiss army...
2. gun is locked and they are not allowed to _load_ them at home
3. ammo box is sealed
4. (military) police is controlling this at your home randomly
5. if you want to buy ammo you need a gun license....
..

there are no accidents with those guns because they aren't lying around loaded

so if some body attacks you at home you first would have to break the seals of ammo and gun, put the ammo in the clip, and load the gun...i hope you can do this fast....



say here: "i have a weapon for protection" as a guy and prepare for heartfull laughter (yes even from swiss) and comments like "what are you ? a girl ?" "haha you're a softie" (there are a thousands words for "Softie" in german)

a friend of mine buyed himself a pepperspray 2 years ago and we are still making jokes about it :D and he doesn't carry it around anymore...


here our girls get free self defense courses in some schools... most girls i know had either multiple self defense courses or/and pepper sprays...


Frohickey you always say that: 'when there are less guns there will be more violent crime' so why is there so few violent crimes (like robbery) here in austria or switzerland where people aren't allowed to carry guns ?

perhaps because money-crime has nothing to do with weapons ?

[IJ Reilly]

A couple of points of order:

(1) Who (once again) is talking about "banning guns" or "making them illegal"? I suspect you could hold a conference of every American who expresses this extreme view in a freight elevator. No, this is a classic red herring diversionary tactic. You're supposed to debate this point rather than a more sensible viewpoint commonly held by reasonable people, because it's so darn difficult to argue against a reasonable position, especially when yours is utterly inflexible and dogmatic.

(2) If restricting gun ownership would automatically make the populace easy prey to criminals, then why aren't countries like Great Britain fairly teaming with gangs of thugs, roaming the country, raping and pillaging? I mean, even their policemen don't carry guns. Something doesn't compute here.

[Ozi]

exactly. The above poster is a wise man. In fact the 2 posters above me are very clever people.

I hope all you americans saying "gangs would rape the women and pillage our homes" dont seriously believe that your people are so much less civilised than the Europeans, the New Zealanders, the Asians? They all have gun regulations in place, and I would bet large sums of money that the crime rate (per capita) in ANY west-European nation is hugely less than the American crime rate.

Lets view it this way, shall we.

All citizens have guns. All criminals have guns. All law enforcement agencies have guns.

The criminals get better guns. Straight away, law enforcement agencies (and the now "vulnerable" general public must get better guns to keep up.)

Criminals upgrade their weapons once more, to stay ahead of the cops... and so this cycle continues...

And what happens? You just get a whole lot of people who dont like each other, getting firearms which kill more quickly, more efficiently, more bloodily.

And you end up with an awful lot more dead people.

Also, someone quoted all these laws before... road rage: "Law #1 broken: carrying unlawful weapon.. Law # 2 is broken: being angry in public. Law #3 that you broke: wearing a tank top and acid wash jeans..." et. al.

SO WHAT if you have rules against shooting and killing people!?!?! any country does! The point is NOT that killing someone is against the law, but that having such ready access to a weapon means it is EASIER TO KILL SOMEONE. This is what the debate is about.

And this is why America either begins the implementation of gun regulations, or continues to shoot itself to pieces.

*bang.*

~ozi

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, this does seem to be the message within the message; the only thing standing between Americans and absolute criminal chaos is our weapons. Why the rest of the Western world doesn't seem to need to man the barricades against this teeming criminal element is the real question.

[Voltron]

Ok thats all very well and good... But we teach our children not to smoke, as it is proven to increase your risk of cancer. Many young people still smoke. We teach our children to drive safely. Many young people still die on the roads whilst "hooning" with their mates. Just because we "teach children the proper safe handling" of cars, doesnt mean they don't die in stupid, avoidable accidents.

Likewise, you can teach children respect of guns, but you cannot ensure they wont be rebellious and disobey this lesson. The only true way to take away this risk, is to ensure they cannot get access to a weapon.
I started smoking because I figure if it was as bad as my parents said it was they wouldn't be smokers. Everybody does it therefore it must be good and part of the grand adult conspiracy to make sure we kids don't have fun.

Well now I'm an adult quit smoking and know better. However with guns you can take kids to events and show them the danger of guns which simultaneously shows the neccessity of having them and the danger of not treating them with the respect they deserve.

[Frohickey]

Ok thats all very well and good... But we teach our children not to smoke, as it is proven to increase your risk of cancer. Many young people still smoke. We teach our children to drive safely. Many young people still die on the roads whilst "hooning" with their mates. Just because we "teach children the proper safe handling" of cars, doesnt mean they don't die in stupid, avoidable accidents.

Likewise, you can teach children respect of guns, but you cannot ensure they wont be rebellious and disobey this lesson. The only true way to take away this risk, is to ensure they cannot get access to a weapon.

The only true way to take away this risk is to limit their freedom. Sedate them with powerful tranquilizers, hook them up to dream machines, and use their brain electrical energy and body heat to power the dream machines...ala Matrix.

Or, turn the country into a police state.

Even back in biblical times, there was murder, you really expect to make saints out of demons by removing all objects?

[skunk]

However with guns you can take kids to events and show them the danger of guns which simultaneously shows the neccessity of having them and the danger of not treating them with the respect they deserve.
But there IS no "necessity" of having them.

[skunk]

The only true way to take away this risk is to limit their freedom. Sedate them with powerful tranquilizers, hook them up to dream machines, and use their brain electrical energy and body heat to power the dream machines...ala Matrix.

Or, turn the country into a police state.

Even back in biblical times, there was murder, you really expect to make saints out of demons by removing all objects?
Or you could try living like most other "civilized" countries, who seem to get along without being armed to the teeth. Keep taking the tablets...

[Voltron]

But there IS no "necessity" of having them.
Explain that to your mugger.

[skunk]

Explain that to your mugger.
Any chance of you providing statistics for the number of attempted muggings actually prevented - preferably without loss of life - by the victims having firearms?

[Frohickey]

The criminals get better guns. Straight away, law enforcement agencies (and the now "vulnerable" general public must get better guns to keep up.)


Unless human evolution takes a gigantic leap forward with the development of chitinous armor around the brain cavity and chest cavity, you will not need 'better guns'. What is your definition of 'better guns'?

Laser aiming devices? Those are out already.
Smaller guns? Those are out already.
What you don't understand is that there is *NO* independent gun development for criminals only.

[zimv20]

Any chance of you providing statistics for the number of attempted muggings actually prevented - preferably without loss of life - by the victims having firearms?
you wanna bet you'll get nothing except anecdotes and supposition?

[Voltron]

Any chance of you providing statistics for the number of attempted muggings actually prevented - preferably without loss of life - by the victims having firearms?
Statistics don't matter when you have a gun to your head or a knife at your throat. And as far as loss of life. Anyone who tries to rob me will die. I don't have a problem with thieves dieing from gunshot wound as a defense against their thievery.

[skunk]

Statistics don't matter when you have a gun to your head or a knife at your throat.
Statistics don't matter when they don't support your case.

And as far as loss of life. Anyone who tries to rob me will die. I don't have a problem with thieves dieing from gunshot wound as a defense against their thievery.
Oooh, you're so masterful!

Seriously, I think the courts might find otherwise.

[Frohickey]

A couple of points of order:

(1) Who (once again) is talking about "banning guns" or "making them illegal"? I suspect you could hold a conference of every American who expresses this extreme view in a freight elevator. No, this is a classic red herring diversionary tactic. You're supposed to debate this point rather than a more sensible viewpoint commonly held by reasonable people, because it's so darn difficult to argue against a reasonable position, especially when yours is utterly inflexible and dogmatic.

(2) If restricting gun ownership would automatically make the populace easy prey to criminals, then why aren't countries like Great Britain fairly teaming with gangs of thugs, roaming the country, raping and pillaging? I mean, even their policemen don't carry guns. Something doesn't compute here.

Britain's police are famed for walking the streets armed with nothing more lethal than a truncheon. But now, for the first time, bobbies on the beat in two violent districts of Nottingham are carrying guns. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4099970,00.html)

Care to recant your 2nd statement? ;)

[Neserk]

Statistics don't matter when you have a gun to your head or a knife at your throat.

They do when you are the 11 year old kid who was just killed by his 14 year old cousin in L.A.

[skunk]

They do when you are the 11 year old kid who was just killed by his 14 year old cousin in L.A.
Should have armed the 11 year old...

[Frohickey]

Any chance of you providing statistics for the number of attempted muggings actually prevented - preferably without loss of life - by the victims having firearms?

The favorite mantra is 'if it only saves one life...', well here is 2.5 million of them (http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html). :eek:

Oh, and here are the comments of a criminologist doing a peer review of the article...
"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

[Neserk]

Should have armed the 11 year old...

I guess so...

The problem with Frohickey's rebuttal is that more lives are lost than saved. It isn't a rebuttal, Frohickey. It is an endorsement for tighter gun control.

[IJ Reilly]

For the record, note that my points were completely ignored, as they always have been. And they will always be ignored, because they're outside of zone of comfort created by the standard dogma.

End of debate, once again.

[Neserk]

For the record, note that my points were completely ignored, as they always have been. And they will always be ignored, because they're outside of zone of comfort created by the standard dogma.



I feel your pain. IOW, I know the feeling.

[Neserk]

The favorite mantra is 'if it only saves one life...', well here is 2.5 million of them (http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html). :eek:


ROFLMAO... I can't believe you actually posted that as a rebuttal. Did you bother to check to see how many *more* lives were lost because of having guns in the home?

[mactastic]

Frohickey consistently tries to use the 'if it only saves one life' argument, but he ignores the fact that it goes both ways. Anyway, it's just another Frohickey hijacking of a thread from an issue he doesn't want to talk about to his favorite subject.

[takao]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rob_cap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri_cap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_cap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_adu_pro_cap

if somebody is interested in statistics

[Frohickey]

ROFLMAO... I can't believe you actually posted that as a rebuttal. Did you bother to check to see how many *more* lives were lost because of having guns in the home?

Don't need to. If we are losing 2.5 million per year, I think you would know about it toot sweet.

Each family has the wherewithal to determine for themselves whether a gun belongs in the home or not. The person determining that is called the 'head of the household'. I would not presume to know what is best for this family, much as I would not hold much credence to someone else knowing what is best for *MY* family.

[skunk]

Each family has the wherewithal to determine for themselves whether a gun belongs in the home or not. The person determining that is called the 'head of the household'. I would not presume to know what is best for this family, much as I would not hold much credence to someone else knowing what is best for *MY* family.
What bollox! Would this "head of the household" be male, by any chance?
Could you post a link giving evidence for this assertion? Is it in the Constitution?

[Frohickey]

What bollox! Would this "head of the household" be male, by any chance?
Could you post a link giving evidence for this assertion? Is it in the Constitution?

It could be the dad.
It could be the mom.

Do you mean to tell me that if you are the 'head of the household', that your word is *NOT* law in that household???!!! :eek:

[Neserk]

Don't need to.


You damn well do if you want to have an argument! If the number of people die because there are firearms is greater than the number of people saved then you have a negative balance.

[pseudobrit]

Can we rename this thread yet?

Better yet, can we move it to the wasteland?

It's nothing but a waste of time arguing with those who hold intolerant extremist viewpoints and have proven time and again their inflexibility, close-mindedness and perhaps most telling, their refusal to answer a point brought up to them that they cannot refute.

[Frohickey]

You damn well do if you want to have an argument! If the number of people die because there are firearms is greater than the number of people saved then you have a negative balance.

Its been established that there have been 2.5million defensive uses of firearms.

Has it been established that there are 2.5million deaths due to the criminal use of firearms? Are there even 2.5million crimes committed due to availability of firearms?

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Neserk
You damn well do if you want to have an argument! If the number of people die because there are firearms is greater than the number of people saved then you have a negative balance.

Its been established that there have been 2.5million defensive uses of firearms.

Has it been established that there are 2.5million deaths due to the criminal use of firearms? Are there even 2.5million crimes committed due to availability of firearms?
I believe he's saying even a death due to defensive use of a firearm vs a criminal is a wrongful death and another added proof why firearms should be outlawed.

My answer is ... Get real.