snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Archived Forums » History Archive » History and Gun Control (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: History and Gun Control
resELution
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for resELution   E-mail resELution   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I got this in the inbox today. I'm not sure how relevant the material here is to the point being made. It doesn't give us any before gun control stats to compare things with. I do belive we should be allowed to have guns as US citizens personally, but gun control does not mean a total ban on guns. So what sort of gun control are they talking about here? It's way too vague, and who knows if it's even historically acurate?


quote:
The Historical results of Gun Control.


Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history.





Something to think about.....





In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------


In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------


German established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------


China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------


Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------


Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------


Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.


It has no been over 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.





The 1st year results are now in: Australia-wide homicides are up 3.2 %, assaults are up 8.6 %, armed robberies are up 44 & (yes, 44%!) in the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)





While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months,since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.





There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

--------------------------------------------------------


The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
--------------------------------------------------------


You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information.
--------------------------------------------------------


Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------


Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!
--------------------------------------------------------


The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
--------------------------------------------------------


With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.
--------------------------------------------------------


If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.


Posts: 2286 | From: Washington State | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
bufungla
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 22 posted      Profile for bufungla   Author's Homepage   E-mail bufungla   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

quote:
The Historical results of Gun Control.


Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history.


--------------------------------------------------------


Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------

Haven't been to Guatemala, but I've been to the Yucatan peninsula just north of there, and the vast majority of the Mayans there had no guns, money or even metal objects. Gun control would've been as pointless there as mandatory central heating.

quote:

It has now been over 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The 1st year results are now in: Australia-wide homicides are up 3.2 %, assaults are up 8.6 %, armed robberies are up 44 & (yes, 44%!) in the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

--------------------------------------------------------


The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
--------------------------------------------------------


I've never seen any of these "facts" reproduced in any Australian news sites. Guns were never as prevalent there as in the US anyways, even before gun control. When you read about armed crime in Australia, it was generally conducted with knives, both before and after gun control.
Even this anti-gun control website states that Australia does not concur with the statistics US pro-gun sites quote about an increase in Australian crime since the buy-back:

quote:
Australian Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams accused the NRA of falsifying government statistics and urged the gun-rights organization to "remove any reference to Australia" from its website.
NRA's Wayne LaPierre

"I find it quite offensive that the NRA is using the very successful gun reform laws introduced in 1996 as the basis for promoting ownership of firearms in the United States," Williams said.

Moreover, it was the people, not the government, who were demanding gun control legislation after the Port Arthur shootings. People were turning in perfectly legal post-ban firearms, just because they were sickened by firearms.

buf 'speaking of Australia' ungla

--------------------
"Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."

George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra

Posts: 4847 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bufungla:

Even this anti-gun control website states that Australia does not concur with the statistics US pro-gun sites quote about an increase in Australian crime since the buy-back:

Well you wouldn't expect them to agree, would you? After all, it was their baby.

The article has much more interestig information farther on:

quote:

In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just six percent of the population -- New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. -- and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation -- and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons.

quote:

Moreover, it was the people, not the government, who were demanding gun control legislation after the Port Arthur shootings. People were turning in perfectly legal post-ban firearms, just because they were sickened by firearms.

Which leads one to conclude that the ban was crafted as a politically-motivated "how can we get re-elected" response to hysteria, rather than through logical conclusions drawn through thorough study of the problem.

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Aaron
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aaron     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
In any of the above cases, would guns really have been effective enough to stop the government? Even if every citizen had owned a gun, I still find it hard to believe they would've successfully been able to defend themselves against an organized military. I'm not really an anti-gun zealot, but this seems like poor reasoning to me.

--------------------
(insert witty remark here)

Posts: 229 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
W. Fikere Tomba
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
snopes has a page on the Australian part:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Publius
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Publius     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron:
quote:
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
In any of the above cases, would guns really have been effective enough to stop the government? Even if every citizen had owned a gun, I still find it hard to believe they would've successfully been able to defend themselves against an organized military.
Indeed, I don't think any of the nations cited really suffered from a shortage of armed men. For that matter, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are among the most heavily-armed in the world at the moment, and I am sure we can see what wonders that has done for stable and democratic government.

For the record, I tend to oppose new gun control legislation.

Posts: 1640 | From: New Haven, CT | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron:
quote:
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
In any of the above cases, would guns really have been effective enough to stop the government? Even if every citizen had owned a gun, I still find it hard to believe they would've successfully been able to defend themselves against an organized military. I'm not really an anti-gun zealot, but this seems like poor reasoning to me.
Successfully? Maybe not. But they'd at least have had a chance at making their enemies' victories far more costly. Imagine if the majority of the Jews in Germany had been armed and able to shoot. The ones who held out in the Warsaw ghetto for a month and killed some 300-1000 heavily-armed German soldiers started out with ten pistols.

For my part, if the bastards are coming to kill you anyway, you might as well take as many of them as you can with you.

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PatYoung
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for PatYoung   E-mail PatYoung   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bufungla:
[QUOTE][qb]
[QUOTE]The Historical results of Gun Control.


Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history.


--------------------------------------------------------


Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------

Haven't been to Guatemala, but I've been to the Yucatan peninsula just north of there, and the vast majority of the Mayans there had no guns, money or even metal objects. Gun control would've been as pointless there as mandatory central heating.

quote:
buf 'speaking of Australia' ungla
Nmmm, the real problem started in 1954 when the US overthrew the elected leader of Guatemala and supported a succession of military dictatorships. BTW, the number killed is estimated to be closer to 250,000 and constituted one of the worst genocides in late Twentieth Century Latin American history.

The notion that the holocaust could have been avoided had gun control been beaten back is laughable, were the ignorance embodied in the notion not so appalling.

In Iraq we have an excellent example of the role a heavily armed society can play in creating a liberal republic in which individual rights are respected. And as we know, it was guns which spared that country the experience of genocide.

--------------------
pat "Megadittoes Rush" young

THUMP, THUMP, THUMP

Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PatYoung:
The notion that the holocaust could have been avoided had gun control been beaten back is laughable, were the ignorance embodied in the notion not so appalling.

And yet, there is the incontrovertible fact that some resisted.

quote:

In Iraq we have an excellent example of the role a heavily armed society can play in creating a liberal republic in which individual rights are respected. And as we know, it was guns which spared that country the experience of genocide.

Generally, it DOES help if the idea of having a republic exists in tandem with the guns.

What kept the armed Iraqis from ending the reign of Hussein? Recall, some of them DID rebel after the first Gulf War. Only the fact that the government was still better armed and more ruthless than they were (and the fact that the international community -including Bush the Elder- did not possess a single functional spine among them) stopped them.

First "It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, is true. But it is better still to be a live lion. And usually easier." of Two

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
zerocool
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for zerocool   E-mail zerocool   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmm... I lived in Australia most of my life, and guns were not 'banned', anyone was allowed to keep guns, it were only the automatic and semi automatic weapons that were turned in, and even for those you can still obtain a permit.
The reason for this was the Port Arthur tragedy, where Martin Bryant shot and killed 32 people with a variant of the M16 (AR something or other?)

Posts: 336 | From: Currently: Jakarta Indonesia Australia Belgium Berkeley CA > Lima Peru< | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PatYoung
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for PatYoung   E-mail PatYoung   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Gojira:
[QUOTE]
What kept the armed Iraqis from ending the reign of Hussein? Recall, some of them DID rebel after the first Gulf War. Only the fact that the government was still better armed and more ruthless than they were
First "It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, is true. But it is better still to be a live lion. And usually easier." of Two

My point exactly. Do you really beleive the Iraqi army was better equipped than the US military? It is our ideals and traditions, shared and defended by the men and women of our armed services, and not guns in the hands of hunters, which preserves our freedoms.

--------------------
pat "Megadittoes Rush" young

THUMP, THUMP, THUMP

Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PatYoung
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for PatYoung   E-mail PatYoung   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Gojira:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PatYoung:
[qb] The notion that the holocaust could have been avoided had gun control been beaten back is laughable, were the ignorance embodied in the notion not so appalling.

And yet, there is the incontrovertible fact that some resisted.

quote:


Keep repeating that and call me in the morning.

--------------------
pat "Megadittoes Rush" young

THUMP, THUMP, THUMP

Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Felessan
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Felessan   E-mail Felessan   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Gojira:
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron:
quote:
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
In any of the above cases, would guns really have been effective enough to stop the government? Even if every citizen had owned a gun, I still find it hard to believe they would've successfully been able to defend themselves against an organized military. I'm not really an anti-gun zealot, but this seems like poor reasoning to me.
Successfully? Maybe not. But they'd at least have had a chance at making their enemies' victories far more costly. Imagine if the majority of the Jews in Germany had been armed and able to shoot. The ones who held out in the Warsaw ghetto for a month and killed some 300-1000 heavily-armed German soldiers started out with ten pistols.

For my part, if the bastards are coming to kill you anyway, you might as well take as many of them as you can with you.

The Stroop Report, the official account of the final destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto, records the losses sustained by the Nazi force used - a mixture of SS troops, SS-police, Ukrainian and Baltic auxiliaries, some Wehrmacht regulars, and a contingent of Polish police - at sixteen killed and 85 wounded. In his report the commander, SS-Major General Jurgen Stroop, lists the weapons taken by his men as nine rifles and 59 pistols plus "several hundred" hand grenades, both Polish and home-made, Molotov cocktails, and home-made bombs.

Andrezj Wirth, translator of the 1979 Secker and Warburg facsimile of Stroop's report, notes that the Jewish defenders of the ghetto, formed into 22 combat groups of 20-30 men and women, had pistols and Molotov cocktails, and two or three rifles and four to five grenades per group. There was just one light machine-gun for the whole force.

Stroop very likely understated his force's losses. According to Wirth, Polish estimates of German losses were 400 to 700.

In the end, the stubborn resistance of the Jewish fighters was crushed. 14,000 of the 56,000 Jews in the ghetto were killed there. The rest were, in Stroop's own words, "destroyed by transport to TII [Treblinka]". No amount of weaponry could have saved them.

--------------------
You fool! That's not a warrior, that's a banana!
- a surreal moment in a role-playing game

Posts: 2480 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Felessan
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Felessan   E-mail Felessan   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by resEmantisLution:
I got this in the inbox today. I'm not sure how relevant the material here is to the point being made. It doesn't give us any before gun control stats to compare things with. I do belive we should be allowed to have guns as US citizens personally, but gun control does not mean a total ban on guns. So what sort of gun control are they talking about here? It's way too vague, and who knows if it's even historically acurate?


quote:
The Historical results of Gun Control.


Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history.

Something to think about.....

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-------------------------------------------------


In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------------------------

German established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-------------------------------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.


It has no been over 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.


The 1st year results are now in: Australia-wide homicides are up 3.2 %, assaults are up 8.6 %, armed robberies are up 44 & (yes, 44%!) in the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)





While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months,since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.


There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

--------------------------------------------


The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
---------------------------------------------
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information.
---------------------------------------------


Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
----------------------------------------------

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!
---------------------------------------------


The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
------------------------------------------------

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.
------------------------------------------------

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.


A fair chunk of it isn't.

Specific examples:

quote:
In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
AFAIK, in 1911 Turkey was in a state of turmoil. The Ottoman Empire was in its last stages. If gun control were enacted, it may well have been in the context of feared revolution.

quote:
"German [sic] established gun control in 1938..."
Hitler and gun control-a-chow

quote:
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
If China established gun control in 1935, it was under Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalist regime. How could the events of 1948 to 1952 be related to that decision - if it were ever taken? My dubiety here is caused by the fact that in 1935 China was at war with Japan, and had been for four years - gun control would not have been an issue then!

quote:
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Again, I wonder how the decisions of twenty years before, by a totally different administration, could be held responsible for the disaster of a later regime. Also, in the intervening years, there had been a decade of war!

In many of the 'cases' mentioned, we can wonder if there was widespread gun ownership to start with.
There is no truth to the scaremongering paragraphs about Australia since the gun buyback.

Finally;
quote:
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information.
Isn't President Bush a member of the NRA? Could it be that whoever spread this stuff still thinks Clinton is in charge?

--------------------
You fool! That's not a warrior, that's a banana!
- a surreal moment in a role-playing game

Posts: 2480 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
bufungla
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 22 posted      Profile for bufungla   Author's Homepage   E-mail bufungla   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Gojira:
quote:
Originally posted by bufungla:

Even this anti-gun control website states that Australia does not concur with the statistics US pro-gun sites quote about an increase in Australian crime since the buy-back:

Well you wouldn't expect them to agree, would you? After all, it was their baby.

I also wouldn't expect them to agree if the numbers were wrong, which snopes points ot in great detail (thanks Tomba).

The point is, all the warnings about how Australia has turned into one big shooting spree are overwhelmingly from US anti-gun control sites. I have yet to see verifiable links to any Australian newspapers citing this kind of information. Moreover, if it were the Australian government's intention to keep guns away from its citizens, it would behoove them to publish any such statistics, since the Australian public would be inclined to demand more gun control legislation in response, not less.

quote:
Originally posted by First of Gojira:
quote:
Originally posted by bufungla:

Moreover, it was the people, not the government, who were demanding gun control legislation after the Port Arthur shootings. People were turning in perfectly legal post-ban firearms, just because they were sickened by firearms.

Which leads one to conclude that the ban was crafted as a politically-motivated "how can we get re-elected" response to hysteria, rather than through logical conclusions drawn through thorough study of the problem.
John Howard had just been elected in March of 96. The Port Arthur massacre occurred in April of 96. Howard is a member of the "Liberal" party (the Liberal party of Australia being quite conservative), and was elected by the Liberal/National Party coalition (the National Party being more conservative than the Liberal Party, and has a large constituent of farmers, which accounts for a large number of firearm owners in Australia). Normally Howard would've been going against his own power base to support this ban, except that this was one issue that all the political parties and the people were united on.

I was in Australia at the time when the massacre occurred, and got to follow all the discussions about the proposed ban. Australia has a very different mindset about firearms and ownership than the US. Rather than go off on a "slippery slope" argument or worry pre-emptively about how only outlaws would have guns, the few groups concerned voiced questions about specific issues, such as the need for farmers to have semiautomatic .22 rifles for shooting rabbits.

buf 'still speaking of Australia' ungla

--------------------
"Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."

George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra

Posts: 4847 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
mnotr2
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for mnotr2   E-mail mnotr2   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the basic point gets lost in all the furor of both sides of this issue. I'd like to simply note the following:

quote:
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.
All the yelling and screaming doesn't take into account these few, powerful words. You can argue all you want whether gun control works or doesn't or if crime will increase or decrease if legal, private ownership of firearms is banned. It won't change the fact that it is a right, guarenteed by our Constitution. It is an integral part of the Bill of Rights. Our founding fathers were inspired to add these ten amendments to the Constitution because these were the things which most threatened the survival of the newly formed state. If you want to repeal one of these amendments, you must be prepared to dissolve the entire document. There has been much debate and contention over the first two amendments to the Constitution. Only if we are prepared to surrender our rights under the First Amendment,(and subsequently the entire Bill of Rights) can we consider repealing the Second Amendment.

Mnot - and I'm not even a gun nut - r2

--------------------
Infinite goodness is creating a being you know, in advance, is going to complain.
Captain Billy Cutshaw

Posts: 582 | From: Germany | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the Second Amendment and the resulting furor should be used by every grammar teacher in the land on the danger of sentence fragments.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
W. Fikere Tomba
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mnotr2:
If you want to repeal one of these amendments, you must be prepared to dissolve the entire document. There has been much debate and contention over the first two amendments to the Constitution. Only if we are prepared to surrender our rights under the First Amendment,(and subsequently the entire Bill of Rights) can we consider repealing the Second Amendment.

That's ridiculous. The Constitution provides an amendment process so that parts of it can be discarded without it forcing us to chuck the whole thing. The removal of certain key parts may render the whole unworkable, but the fact that something is included in the Bill of Rights does not prove that it is one of these parts.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
W. Fikere Tomba
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angl Hearts and Minds Rdr:
I think the Second Amendment and the resulting furor should be used by every grammar teacher in the land on the danger of sentence fragments.

I don't see any sentence fragments. I see some commas in places where today's standard usage would not put commas, but the whole thing makes a coherent sentence: "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."
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Archangel
Spider Cider


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Archangel     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by W. Fikere Tomba:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Whatever its grammatical status, the base proposition is absurd.

It's a shame politics is the art of the possible. If you did it my way, several professors of old & middle English, James Joyce specialists & 2 well regarded poets would meet in conclave, determine the amendment to be truth and beauty deficient and that would be that. None of this tedious gun lobby farce.

Posts: 1749 | From: -> Canberra <-/ Hong Kong / London | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Greg of Winter
Xboxing Day


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg of Winter   E-mail Greg of Winter   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mnotr2:


[QUOTE] If you want to repeal one of these amendments, you must be prepared to dissolve the entire document.

Mnot - and I'm not even a gun nut - r2

I don't agree with your reasoning. It's like saying that when the US tossed out the 18th Amendment, we should have chucked the rest of the US Constitution with it.

--------------------
Meanwhile, at stately Wayne Manor...

Posts: 1316 | From: Oregon | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by W. Fikere Tomba:
quote:
Originally posted by Angl Hearts and Minds Rdr:
I think the Second Amendment and the resulting furor should be used by every grammar teacher in the land on the danger of sentence fragments.

I don't see any sentence fragments. I see some commas in places where today's standard usage would not put commas, but the whole thing makes a coherent sentence: "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 first phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," since it cannot stand alone as a complete sentence (in the tense it is written), should have some cohesion with the second phrase (which can stand alone as a complete sentence).

See what I am getting at? IOW: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is a sentence fragment.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
W. Fikere Tomba
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angl Hearts and Minds Rdr:
The first phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," since it cannot stand alone as a complete sentence (in the tense it is written), should have some cohesion with the second phrase (which can stand alone as a complete sentence).

See what I am getting at? IOW: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is a sentence fragment.

Any dependent clause would be a sentence fragment if you took away the main clause. For example, in the sentence I just typed, "if you took away the main clause" cannot stand alone. But since it's part of a larger sentence, it doesn't have to. There's nothing wrong with writing sentences with dependent clauses in them.

What's wrong with this?
quote:
Cannibalism being illegal in New Jersey, we will have to dump our victim in the river.
Or this?
quote:
Things being what they are, we should probably have warned him about the asteroid.
These are perfectly good sentences.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
*Puts on English BA Hat*

A sentence fragment it is not. It is a subordinate clause.

It is merely at attempt to justify the main clause.

Identical in structure and purpose to:

"Because the building is on fire, we should exit."

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cobra4J
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cobra4J   E-mail Cobra4J   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Whether the sentence is a fragment or not is a rather stupid thing to argue about. The implication is clear that people should be allowed to own weapons and organize a militia.

However, if we were to allow a bunch of maniacs to buy machine guns or grenades does not sound like a "well regulated" anything. If the state of Michigan, where I live, were to enlist people, organize them, train them, and properly arm them, that's a militia (not the "michigan militia" that has become so famous or perhaps infamous.)

I own guns- and I believe I am quite capable of defending myself and my family from an intruder or 2. But, were I to go out into the battle field with just my rifles and shotgun in this day and age, how much of a chance would I have against tanks, artillery, cruise missiles, etc?

To protect myself from an oppressive government today, I feel we should make better use of our free speech, freedom of the press, and most of all- our right to vote. Lets find some candidates who are worth voting for, candidates who promise to get the government off our backs, and vote for them, even if they cannot come up with 100 million dollars for a good advertising campaign.

Posts: 479 | From: Owosso, MI | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra4J:

However, if we were to allow a bunch of maniacs to buy machine guns or grenades does not sound like a "well regulated" anything.

In the language of the time, "well regulated" merely meant "all equipped and run in a similar fashion."

In other words, a militia in, say, Pittsburgh, would be run in basically the same way as a militia in, say, Atlanta.

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snopes
Return! Return! Return!


Icon 1 posted      Profile for snopes   Author's Homepage   E-mail snopes       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The implication is clear that people should be allowed to own weapons and organize a militia.
Actually, what it clearly states is that people should be able to own weapons to organize a militia.

- snopes

Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
abbubmah
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for abbubmah   E-mail abbubmah   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
My opinion - the question of the "militia" provision is probably better seen historically. Having just come out of an armed conflict that would not have turned out so well without the colonists' weaponry, provision was made to allow the "free will of the people" to prevail in similar circumstance. That circumstance being, the new government took steps to allow shortsightedness in its organization, that may lead to once again, "taxation without representation", and government control over the individual.

Now - I'm sure the intent was not for citizens with guns to either use them willy-nilly against each other, but to preserve a "personal firearm" right. Also, regarding the "people need guns for self-defense" argument, in the 16 years I have lived in this neighborhood, none of my neighbors has had to shoot an armed intruder. And, probably, most of them have a firearm in the house. It's really not an issue, and a bad argument AGAINST gun control.

Certain types of firearms should probably be made difficult for most people to obtain. (and they are). Permitting and registration is in place... the government has a VERY good idea who has purchased new firearms. That's not the problem.

The basic problem is crime... and criminal intent. Any weapon can and will be used, guns are simply the most effective. Illegal guns will continue to be illegal guns. The law-abiding citizen and his firearm are passive victims of crime, when gun control is enforced.

ham " [Big Grin] " bubba

--------------------
Fundamentally Unfundie since 1975

Posts: 7942 | From: Louisiana | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hamzilla's bubba:

Now - I'm sure the intent was not for citizens with guns to either use them willy-nilly against each other, but to preserve a "personal firearm" right.

And to allow for a second Revolution should the new government ever become like the old one was.

quote:

Also, regarding the "people need guns for self-defense" argument, in the 16 years I have lived in this neighborhood, none of my neighbors has had to shoot an armed intruder. And, probably, most of them have a firearm in the house.

It it generally known, do you think, that your community is an armed neighborhood? Could that be a contributing factor, do you think, in why none of your neighbors have had occasion to use their weapons?

When I was in my late teens, it was generally known that my family were gun enthusiasts (well, my father and brother more than myself - I prefer blades when possible, but I'm a decent enough shot).

We lived out in farm country, where the houses are fairly secluded and hard to see from the roads. There was a rash of burglaries at the time, and houses all around us were hit, sometimes with people still at home. We weren't touched (although I think we were cased, there was some suspicious vehicle activity locally), and I attribute that largely to the fact that we were known to be shooters.

(I still remember the day a fellow student asked me "is it true you and your dad patrol your property at night with machine guns?" And I said "No, machine guns are illegal. He carries a rifle, I carry a shotgun.") [Big Grin]

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
abbubmah
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 214 posted      Profile for abbubmah   E-mail abbubmah   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Gojira:
It it generally known, do you think, that your community is an armed neighborhood? Could that be a contributing factor, do you think, in why none of your neighbors have had occasion to use their weapons?

Well, no. Remember, this is south Louisiana, while not everyone has a gun, there is higher probability that any given person will have one, given the serious attention that hunting gets here.

Also, there is very little "break-in" crime in the entire city. And then, it's usually kids. It's possible that the general expectation of bubbas having shotguns deters crime, rather than there simply being less crime. (with the same result!) Interesting hypothesis. And, to carry it further, if it is true that the presence, or implied presence of a firearm in a house stops crime, in this case, no shots are ever fired.

Can that be bad? Somebody should do a government funded study...

quote:
(I still remember the day a fellow student asked me "is it true you and your dad patrol your property at night with machine guns?" And I said "No, machine guns are illegal. He carries a rifle, I carry a shotgun.")
I always say, if I get a shotgun for home defense, it will be a single shot. That's all that's needed.

ham "fully automatic pants wetter" bubba

--------------------
Fundamentally Unfundie since 1975

Posts: 7942 | From: Louisiana | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Elkhound
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elkhound         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mnotr2:
I think the basic point gets lost in all the furor of both sides of this issue. I'd like to simply note the following:

quote:
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 key words being well regulated and militia. The gun ownership is not an absolute right, and may be regulated by that State, and it is not for the personal convenience or even protection of individual citizens, but a collective right of the State to call upon the citizenry to defend it in arms.

--------------------
"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch

Posts: 3307 | From: Charleston, WV | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elkhound:
quote:
Originally posted by mnotr2:
I think the basic point gets lost in all the furor of both sides of this issue. I'd like to simply note the following:

quote:
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 key words being well regulated and militia. The gun ownership is not an absolute right, and may be regulated by that State, and it is not for the personal convenience or even protection of individual citizens, but a collective right of the State to call upon the citizenry to defend it in arms.
Go back and read my posts again. You are working from the wrong definition of "well regulated."

Keep in mind also that it is well-established that the writers of the constitution considered the "militia" to be pretty much everybody who could pick up a gun and use it.

You might also note that Article III Section 22 of your own State Constitution (West Virginia) states that "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use."

The actual "key words" are "the right of the people" and "shall not be infringed."

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jason Threadslayer
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jason Threadslayer     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elkhound:
The key words being well regulated and militia. The gun ownership is not an absolute right, and may be regulated by that State, and it is not for the personal convenience or even protection of individual citizens, but a collective right of the State to call upon the citizenry to defend it in arms.

I don't think "well regulated" means "controlled or limited by laws", but rather "adhering to specifications" or "adjusted for accurate or proper function". Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 29 (Federalist 22 through 29 cover the necessary military powers of government):

quote:
To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance on the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would far short of the whole expence of the civil establishment of all the States.
According to Hamilton, a militia earns the "character of a well regulated militia" by frequent drilling. There is no worktime loss by laws governing gun ownership but by time taken off to drill or otherwise train as a militia.

Near the beginning of the article, Hamilton writes,
quote:
that the plan of the Convention proposes to empower the union "to provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."


--------------------
All posts foretold by Nostradamus.

Turing test failures: 6

Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dark Blue
The First USA Noel


Icon 213 posted      Profile for Dark Blue   E-mail Dark Blue   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The key words being well regulated and militia. The gun ownership is not an absolute right, and may be regulated by that State, and it is not for the personal convenience or even protection of individual citizens, but a collective right of the State to call upon the citizenry to defend it in arms.
Then why would they say the right of the people? Becuase everywhere that they talk about a power of the state or government, they say state or government, and in the other amendments protecting individual rights they say people or person (ie. 1st amendment) but your telling me that this one time when they really meant it was a right of the state they said people just for the fun of it?

I also think that the government or state doesn't have "rights" They have power and authority but rights are something iherently meant for individuals or people.

And also what First and Jason said.

--------------------
I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. -- On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs by LTC. Dave Grossman, USA (Ret)

Posts: 675 | From: Arizona | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Matt H.
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Matt H.     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason the Jinxed:
quote:
Originally posted by Elkhound:
The key words being well regulated and militia. The gun ownership is not an absolute right, and may be regulated by that State, and it is not for the personal convenience or even protection of individual citizens, but a collective right of the State to call upon the citizenry to defend it in arms.

I don't think "well regulated" means "controlled or limited by laws", but rather "adhering to specifications" or "adjusted for accurate or proper function". Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 29 (Federalist 22 through 29 cover the necessary military powers of government)


The militia being referred to is what is now the National Guard of the various states. To examine this point, look at Article II of the Constitution and what it says about the President's powers regarding this area.

The Second Amendment did come up during the fit of incorporation cases that occurred before the Supreme Court in the 1920s and 30s. In Miller v. United States, in a nutshell, the Court ruled that the Second Amenedment merely precluded the federal government from enforcing most individual and militia gun-control measures, and that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states at all. Being that the Court has refused to revisit this issue, it can be assumed that the Second Amendment cannot be held to the states and that individual states can, more or less, have unlimited latitude in enacting gun control.

--------------------
"Who needs the Bible? I've got this magic 8-ball."

Posts: 354 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2