quote:Originally posted by Gus: Here's the history of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, straight from the horse's mouth. The first white settlement was founded by Roger WIlliams in 1636, who was fleeing persecution in Mass. Here's a quote from the site: "It was the last of the 13 original colonies to ratify the U.S. Constitution, demanding that the Bill of Rights, which guarantees individual liberties, be added."
That is interesting. Thanks, Gus. Sounds like they were pioneers of setting the standard of ensuring civil liberties.
And I see I mixed up Connecticut with Massachusetts. D'oh! I guess I confused that with the Oswald v. Connecticut thing.
quote:Originally posted by Ewok: On the topic of what the 2nd amendment means, maybe this will help:
Ewok- clearly we have different stands on guns, but I find the information you post very informative- thanks. However, the link above you recommended is clearly extremely biased and not very informative, or helpful in converting anti-gun people to pro-gun people. Actually, from the first screen, I knew it would be of little value: it provided two choices ("Guns are evil and corrupt people" or "Guns are useful tool[sic] with no will of their own"), niether of which I feel is accurate. However, in tried both. The "guns are evil" post presented a list of questions, often times without answers I would choose and, and often times presented as highly charged, and very poor analogies. Likening a computer to a hand gun is silly! What I disagreed with most on this site was the thinly veiled call to shoot police officers:
quote:He may also have body armor, proof against pistol bullets. Such a scenario is likely if DEA or local police are there by mistake. They have been known to kick in the wrong doors. Sometimes they kick in the "right doors", it just might happen that the door is yours. A rifle bullet would go through a Kevlar vest. Rifles are also more likely to have a larger deteachable magazines than either pistols or shotguns. If you are have the time to reach for more than your sidearm, get a rifle or a shotgun.
IMO associating your logical and well presented arguments with hysterics like this site does nothing to support your position.
quote:Originally posted by Ewok: On the topic of what the 2nd amendment means, maybe this will help:
'..........and so on...
You missed my point, at least. If the 2nd amendment MEANS (by your or anyone else's definition) that that bearing arms is AN UNRESTRICTED right of the individual, then find someone to take that position forward through the courts...Otherwise, shut up, what you SAY is meaningless.
What the founding fathers said is meaningless, unless it is confirmed by the supremes, yakkity yak is not doing anything. As long as you allow congress people to decide what is and what is not prohibited then you get what you deserve.
End of Story
[This message has been edited by bhd8ball (edited 10-05-2000).]
Oleg does go over the top, occasionally. In his defense, I'll submit this from his FAQ:
quote:Q) Are you *that* paranoid? A) Yes. I grew up in USSR and have seen what happens when citizens are reduced to the status of subjects. Moreover, proficiency with weapons is as practical a skill as giving CPR or using a fire extinguisher: in an emergency, these skills can save lives.
quote:Originally posted by Ewok: In his defense, I'll submit this from his FAQ:
Ahh. missed that part. It's always usefull to know the frame of reference a person's opinions are coming from.
In a slightly related interesting piece of current events: the people of yugoslavia apparently are effecting change in their government without the use of firearms to do it. From CNN News.
It seems to me that the Ghandi-esque civil disobedience method of effecting change in the government as used by Poland, Czech Republic and now Yugoslavia appears to work much better than the armed resistance approach of the militiamen here in the US and the various armed revolts around the world.
Indeed, they do! Kind of like rabbits or 'roos, although not as tasty! The statistic I choose to believe is that firearms are used defensively around 2 million times a year in the US. Here's a horribly biased analysis of that statistic!
I think this is one issue where both sides will never agree with each other. Gun control advocates will not be swayed by the stories of those whose lives have been saved by guns. On the other hand, right to carry people will not be swayed by those whose lives have been ruined by guns (accidental deaths, Columbine type of tragedies).
Posts: 5729 | From: HellPaso, TX | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saw your comments about my site. Actually, that site does need re-writing, esp. the questionnaire and I do agree with you on that.
I would like to note that many police officers and agencies link to my site. They view my comments as endorsement of shooting _ROGUE police officers and other criminals_ only which is just fine with them. While my site may be over the top, we can, if you like, discuss specifics. We may well agree on more issues that you or I would suspect at first.
I remember the good old days, and this was the 80's mind you, when we settled things with fists. Nowadays, even grade schoolers, kids who are 5, 6 years old, are packing and it just ain't the same anymore. I mean, is it just me or do kids use guns more now than they did before? I'm sure kids have always used guns but like this??? The father in the movie 'Friday' had a very good speech. I know it's a comedy, but there was that one serious moment when he caught his son with a gun. He was talking about how kids nowadays are "sissified," and back in his day they settled things with fists. You win some, you lose some, but you live to see another day was his motto.
Not that I'm against guns altogether. I have much respect for their power and role in history. I've fired several at the local firing range (glock and colt .45 are my favorites). It's just that many don't seem to truly respect the gun.
quote:Originally posted by Ewok: [QUOTE]Living in earthquake country (the San Andreas is practically in my backyard), I would not want to be without:
shotgun and ammo
There's a movie about that (I present for entertainment purposes) I believe called Blackout? With Elizabeth Shue and Kyle ??(twin peaks guy) as a newly married couple. The area they live in goes into a unexplained blackout- society begins collapsing. They get a gun for 'protection'- and end up almost ruining their lives because of it. Believable (but obviously biased) presentation.
This is a bit repetitious, so I'll TRY to keep it as short as I can, while tying a couple of points together.
(IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This posting comments ONLY on the "defence of democracy" line of pro-gun reasoning. There is a separate pro-gun argument, the "self defence" position, which has several aspects that I agree with, and which I think is partly correct.)
The "cop killing" aspect of Oleg's page, which was noted by Gus, illustrates exactly my fundamental objection to the "defence of democracy" line of reasoning. In a country such as the USA which is democratic and subject to the rule of law, the quotation cannot be describing anything else but the use of force to override the rule of law. Once again, to override the rule of law is fundamentally and irredeemably anti-democratic.
(Modifying the position by saying that it is meant to apply only to "rogue" policemen does not help, because "rogue" policemen don't come with convenient black hats or "R" tattooed on their foreheads. The modification thus implies that the gun holder's personal judgment is sufficient to determine whether the policeman is "rogue" or not. That's not sufficient; a reliable determination of this question has to come from the justice system, operating under -- you guessed it -- the rule of law.)
As Ewok noted, Oleg's background influences his views. He came from a country which was not subject to the rule of law (and still isn't, as far as we can tell). I don't believe he understands yet what it means to BE subject to the rule of law. In one of my earlier posts, I commented that possessing weapons in order to resist the government does make perfect sense -- in undemocratic countries. The USA is not one of those.
Furthermore, because of the fundamental difference between rule of law/democracy and the absence of same, Oleg's analogy (between what happened in the Soviet Union where citizens were unarmed, and what he thinks can happen in the USA if citizens are unarmed) is wrong. It is the absence of democracy and the rule of law, not the absence of armed citizens, that was primarily responsible for oppression in the Soviet Union.
If the rule of law doesn't exist, you can be as armed as you want -- a tyrannical government can just send more tanks. In contrast, if the rule of law does exist (as in Canada, the UK, and Australia) it gives you tools to fight against any unjust governmental "tyranny" that work far better than firearms. (Using firearms in these countries will actually hurt you. Government depends quite a lot on "the consent of the governed", and if you use firearms to oppose the elected government in these countries, the REST of the "governed" will NOT consent to what YOU want. Quite the opposite: we'll put heavy pressure on the government to lock you up.)
quote:Adolescent violence in general, and homicides in particular, have decreased since 1993, but that hopeful trend has been somewhat obscured in the nationwide wave of concern over school shootings of the type examined in NCAVC's study. This recent form of adolescent violence is in fact quite rare. But the sudden, senseless deaths of teenagers and teachers in the middle of a school day, for no comprehensible reason, is far more shocking and gets far more attention than the less extreme acts of violence that happen in schools every week.
quote:News coverage magnifies a number of widespread but wrong or unverified impressions of school shooters. Among them are:
School violence is an epidemic.
All school shooters are alike.
The school shooter is always a loner.
School shootings are exclusively revenge motivated.
Easy access to weapons is THE most significant risk factor.
Unusual or aberrant behaviors, interests, hobbies, etc., are hallmarks of the student destined to become violent.
quote:How effective is a gun against an earthquake?
Roughly as effective as water, food, and flashlights are against an earthquake.
Earthquakes, perhaps moreso than other natural disasters, have a tendency to disrupt power, phones, transportation, etc. The 1989 7.0 quake, a (very) few miles from my house, was mild compared to what's projected to hit within the next few decades. With no power and no police cars, things could get real bad, real quick.
quote:Originally posted by Ewok: [QUOTE]Believable... presentation.
OT, but are you interested in investment opportunities? ... With no power and no police cars, things could get real bad, real quick. [/QUOTE]
Did you see the movie I referred to? This is what happens in the movie.
[quote]Originally posted by Steve in the F Clef: Government depends quite a lot on "the consent of the governed", and if you use firearms to oppose the elected government in these countries, the REST of the "governed" will NOT consent to what YOU want.
Steve summed up my view much better than I was able to.
BELGRADE (AP)--The Yugoslav news agency Tanjug, which defected to the opposition Thursday, said two people were killed and 65 injured in the rioting against President Slobodan Milosevic.
Tanjug said all but 12 of the injured were treated and released from hospitals.
The Yugoslav military remained in its barracks and it was unclear whether the army remained loyal to Milosevic, but his security forces appeared to be disintegrating, with protesters seizing police precincts without a fight. The level of defiance was unprecedented in Yugoslavia's 55-year communist history.
As night fell, thousands of demonstrators walked the streets in a relatively relaxed atmosphere. Some were drunk and brandishing handguns.
Several shop windows were shattered, and by evening orange flames still billowed from part of the parliament building. Big trucks with loudspeakers drove through Belgrade blasting folk and rock music.
quote:Originally posted by Steve in the F Clef: At the time of the American revolution, I don't know how much of the monarch's power had gone to Parliament. Clearly England was not as much of a democracy then as it is now; Parliament now has all the power. But I'm sure it was more of a democracy than in the time of Henry VII. So whether you say England is an "older" democracy than the US depends on when you think England's Parliament had enough power to deserve that description. I don't know enough English history to have an opinion on that.
If you don't require it to be a continuous state of affairs, the English deposed (and beheaded) their monarch in the 1640's or so. ("Now Charles the First is tumbled down...") Parliament -- or Cromwell -- had the power...
...and abused it terribly... Sigh...
------------------ "...With trembling heart and failing nerve, cried, 'I approve, without reserve!'"
I went over there to read these decisions to see just what the supremes have decided...
Well, blow me down.. The very first thing I see is definition of what can and can not be regulated, the details...Ergo: the supremes have decided that guns MAY be regulated.
Ever hear the joke about the man that goes up to a lady in a bar and whispers: "will you make love to me for a million dollars?". She answers in the affirmative, so he asks her if she'll "do it" for twenty dollars. She gets all huffy and says, "What do you think I am?". He says, of course, "we've already determine what you are, now we're just haggeling over the price!"
So okay, the supremes said, in effect: " the second amendment is NOT applicable to INDIVIDUALS...". Because the amendment doesn't leave any room: if it is for individuals it would HAVE to be unrestricted.
Therefore ALL constituional arguments that start off saying: " the second amendment clearly states that the INDIVIDUALS right to bear arms is protected...", is WRONG..
So now if you want a gun, write your congressman.... Boy that's a laugh.
Regulation itself, however, is strictly limited by preexisting statutes, by precedents, and by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In other words, a finding by the Supreme Court that guns (or anything else) can be "regulated" absolutely does not mean that the government can impose any restriction it wants.
One of the primary functions of the judiciary is to hear cases where someone believes that a regulation has been imposed which contravenes pre-existing statutes, the Constitution, or relevant precedents. And if the complaint is found to be true, the regulation is struck down. (Granted, nothing is perfect, but an independent judiciary is by far the most effective way to make these determinations.) So this is the way in which the government itself is (and MUST be, for democracy to be preserved) subject to the rule of law.
Steve "I can say the above on EITHER side of the border" in F
quote:So okay, the supremes said, in effect: " the second amendment is NOT applicable to INDIVIDUALS...". Because the amendment doesn't leave any room: if it is for individuals it would HAVE to be unrestricted.
What an interesting interpretation.
quote:the supremes have decided that guns MAY be regulated.
Yes, and so can free speech, and all of the other rights of individuals listed. It's possible to pass laws regarding firearms without infringing the right to keep and bear arms.
If I recall properly...the second amendment was made only so the americans could defend themselves from the British if any problems arose from secession in 1776. Right wing zealots have hijacked it and warped its' objective to what it is today. As for the British example, here in Canada we have tough gun control laws too. And, last i checked, our murder rate was 1/3 that of our southern neighbours. Makes you wonder....
One of Ewok's posts is very interesting to me, because it says that regulating a right does not necessarily amount to "infringing" on it. I had always thought that "infringe" covered any and all forms of regulation. Ewok's constitutional research is always thorough, though, so if he indicates that regulation doesn't necessarily constitute infringement, I trust his accuracy.
I think this is quite exciting, because I believe it means that even a very pro-gun person like Ewok can agree to certain regulations which prevent certain people from having guns. For example, I don't think I have ever heard the NRA opposing rules that deny guns to people who have been convicted of some felonies. And at the other end of the spectrum, an anti-gun person like me has no objection to certain kinds of guns being owned by certain people. I can't see any problem with hunters having hunting rifles and shotguns, for example.
If that is the case, then both sides can debate on purely practical grounds about what the rules should be. Certainly I will want stricter rules than Ewok, but what rules end up existing is a matter of degree.
Although in PRINCIPLE, I will still believe that there is no actual "right" to bear arms, this belief is irrelevant in practice, because I have already accepted that the law will (and should) allow at least some people to have guns under at least some conditions. In terms of the practical impact (some have guns, some don't), it does not matter whether I think those WITHOUT guns have been deprived of a right, or those WITH guns have been given a privilege.
So I think a practical accommodation and compromise on matters of gun possession and use is not at all impossible. It is true that we cannot reach compromise on the issue of guns as a protector of freedom in a democratic country, but there is no need to repeat myself about that.
Steve, as long as I can have anything a foot soldier or police officer can have, I'm happy. If I can't, I've got to wonder why. The police don't encounter anyone that I wouldn't. The only difference is that they have backup, and, to a certain degree, a license to murder by accident.
One could argue that if convicted felons can never be allowed the basic tools of self-defense after they've served their time, then maybe we should just lock them up forever, or execute them. However, that kind of thinking tends to lead to people being executed for stealing a loaf of bread. Of course, we could send them to Australia. No law could ever keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, especially while we have the extremely lucrative "war on drugs." It's just not that hard to make a firearm. Any competent machinist could make at least one a day. Add a few laborers and you have a factory. If you want "feel-good" laws that say a known criminal has to break the law to get a gun, well, whatever. Just don't be surprised if people have less and less respect for the law. Kind of like that ludicrous national speed limit we finally did away with recently.
Now, I do think that the NRA is way too willing to "compromise." Compromise doesn't mean giving in slightly more slowly than the gun-grabbers might wish. I'll use sub-machine guns for an example. In the 1930s, during prohibition, congress passed a law so they would have something to prosecute gangsters with. The law-enforcement agencies were having a tough time catching, prosecuting, and actually convicting gangsters. Putting a ridiculously high tax on sub-machine guns and short-barreled shotguns gave them something concrete to charge them with, since they knew that the gangsters wouldn't pay a $200 tax on a $30 firearm. Lo and behold, it turned out that prohibition was a NFBSKing stupid idea and so prohibition was repealed. But they didn't bother repealing the tax on those firearms. Most people don't even realize that it's still legal to own SMGs in the US (except for some dozen or so states). The reason they don't realize it is that SMGs are virtually never used in crimes.
Eventually, the cost of SMGs equaled and then surpassed the $200 tax. Quite a few firearms enthusiasts jumped through the hoops, paid the $200 tax, got the signature from their local chief law-enforcement officer, and got their SMGs to play with. The gun-owners were more-or-less happy, the gun-phobes didn't even realize that somebody, somewhere, was having fun. This lasted until 1986. I don't recall who, but some gun-grabbing politician decided that we ought to prohibit the sale of newly manufactured, or imported, units of this class of firearm that, as I mentioned, is virtually never used to commit a crime. The NRA just rolled over and played dead. Now, instead of $600 + $200 for a SMG, it's more like $3000 + $200. Were any crimes prevented? No, none at all. Does the government has a compelling interest (er, is that the right legal term?) in preventing the manufacture and import of SMGs? No, not statistically. Does it infringe on the RKBA? Well, yes, it does. The foot soldier and the police officer can still get newly manufactured SMGs, but I can't.
Now, you mentioned
quote:I can't see any problem with hunters having hunting rifles and shotguns, for example.
Let me give you a very concrete example of what some people are calling the "unintended consequences" of gun-control legislation. I own an AR15 clone. As I and, IIRC, pinqy, mentioned in another thread, this is the semi-automatic, "civilian," version of the M16 (SMG) infantry rifle. I bought this particular type of rifle because I wanted to take some rifle classes and knew that this would be the most common type of rifle in the class. The M16/AR15 design doesn't fire a very powerful cartridge, but it has good reliability and ergonomics. Magazines are a very important part of a "semi-auto" or "self-loading" firearm. I considered various kinds and decided on a particular model of magazine that seemed to be easy to load, reliable, and happened to hold 30 rounds. The standard GI 20 round mags have a lot of sharp edges and didn't appeal to me.
Well, I still own this rifle, but I ended up taking it out of California and leaving it at a friends house. You see, I had a pretty good idea that CA was headed towards banning sales of this design, if they could figure out how to word a law that would do that. What I didn't count on was that they would require "registration" of rifles of this design. I've already submitted to background checks, waiting periods, etc., but now I have to "register" it? Here's the kicker: if I take this rifle to a rifle range, any law-enforcement officer can come up to me and demand to see my papers saying that I "registered" this rifle. My "papers"! In America?! Does he have probable cause to interrupt my practice and harrass me?
So I weighed the alternatives. I could leave the rifle in my safe and never practice or train with it. If I did that, I should also disassemble the rifle, to avoid prosecution if they somehow found out that I had it. I could sell it. I could smuggle my legal property out of CA and leave it with a friend. So I did the latter.
But still, I'd like to have a rifle. Shooting a rifle is different from shooting a handgun or a shotgun. Different ranges, different challenges. So, not wanting to go through this again, I look for something that won't likely be banned any time soon. A "hunting" rifle would be perfect, even though I'd never even shoot Bambi unless he was rabid. As I mentioned, the AR15/M16 shoots a wimpy cartridge, the .223 Remington. Its main advantage is that a foot soldier can carry a lot of ammo, since they're very light. Hunters don't care about that. They use the most powerful cartridge they can handle that will usually result in more-or-less instant death in their prey. I wouldn't want to carry 30 of these cartridges around; the gun-grabbers, in their infinite wisdom, have decreed that 10 shall be the maximum number of cartridges that a magazine shall hold. So I buy a pump-action, .308 caliber, rifle and several 10 round magazines. Can this puppy punch through "bullet-proof" vests? Oh, you betcha. Like a sneeze through cheap tissue.
What has the legislation accomplished? Are crimes prevented? No, AR15 style rifles are hardly ever used in crimes.
If I somehow go nuts and decide to kill my fellow man, is my destructive capability lessened? No, I may not be carrying as much ammo, but hunting ammo is far more powerful than current issue military ammo.
Now, if we were playing some kind of game, and my task was to eliminate your forces, would I use a firearm? Hell no! I'd build the biggest damn bomb I could.
quote:Originally posted by 3 gun: The Battle of Athens, Tennessee As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort Against Corrupt Government Officials. http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm
Yes, that's the one I was trying to remember! Thanks for posting, and do be sure to check out the rest of this site; we manage to have a lot of a fun here, and occasionally some inteligent discourse.
There might be no USA without gun control. Isn't that ironic? Well, at least there might not have been a Revolutionary War. The little scirmish at Concord was between a group of colonists and a unit of British regulars sent out into the countryside to confiscate firearms. Look up your history folks. Without people fighting for their right to keep guns, the USA might not have come to be.
Also, England at that time, and until the early 20th Century, had legal firearms ownership protected by it's equivalent of the Bill of Rights. So, they had legal rights as British subjects to own weapons, yet the British went out to take their guns. Not only did they do that, but more importantly, they didn't do the same in England. What does that teach us? Gun control is people control. They were after a very specific group of political opponents who tried VERY hard to not have a military conflict with them, and made repeated attempts to compromise and have peace. Britain didn't like these people's politics, and therefore they tried to disarm them. Germany also tried gun control. Guess who had to register thier guns and who didn't? That's right Jews had to, Aryans didn't. We all know how that turned out.
In India, a place ruled by England during a time when England had legal firearms, guns were not allowed to certain groups. Once again, targetted gun control. Ireland? Same deal. Russia? The only way to get a gun in Russia was to be at a certain eschelon of the communist party. In fact, you had to be a member of the communist party to even own a metal hunting knife. Non-communist party members could have a wooden knife, but no more.
Controlling weapons is a means of controlling people, and once they have guns and you don't, don't believe for a second they aren't going to take advantage of it. There hasn't been more than a handfull of cultures in the entire history of the world that have disarmed their people and not taken advantage of it. History shows us, we lose our guns, we lose our freedom. Now the question is: Do you wanna live free?
Please note as well that the second ammendment states that regulated militia is necessary for a free society, and therefore justifies having an army. The right to bear arms is directly attributed to the people, and doesn't have any qualifiers to it, it is very concise. Why did they put these two points in the same ammendment? Simple, because the people of this country are the militia, and therefore are part of our national defense.
quote:Originally posted by Dangus: Also, England at that time, and until the early 20th Century, had legal firearms ownership protected by it's equivalent of the Bill of Rights. So, they had legal rights as British subjects to own weapons, yet the British went out to take their guns.
Dangus, could you give anything to back this up? (I can feel my hackles rising again, people). If you read some of the previous posts in this thread, particularly from those of us who are Brits, you'll see that our major objection to the speech in the OP was people taking the US consititution and situation and applying it to the UK. And unless I am reading you very wrong, that is exactly what you have just done.
We do NOT have an "equivalent to the Bill of Rights". The UK is not a consitutional democracy - we have accepted practice and rights which have developed through judicial decisions and parliamentary practice, but we do not have a formal written constitution. Only last week the European Human Rights Legislation was accepted into English law, and last year in Scotland, which has formalised some rights for us.
Show me anything which has ever given me as a British citizen the right to own a gun, and I'll back down gracefully. Otherwise, please try to understand why I (and others) are so angry about the OP and, I have to say, this sort of response to it. Read some of the posts above, will you!
quote:From T. Markus Funk, "Is the Second Amendment Really Such a Riddle? Tracing the Historical "Origins of an Anglo-American Right" 39 Howard Law Journal 411 (1995):
Few topics of contemporary social, moral, and political debate can provoke as much raw emotion and open hostility as the Second Amendment, particularly in relation to the topic of gun prohibition. This subject routinely causes many well-intentioned people of whatever view to give up all pretense of courtesy and reason in favor of ad hominem attacks on those with whom they disagree. Readers of history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm's To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right will find these ugly by-products of the contemporary conflict refreshingly absent. Malcolm clearly keeps her distance from any broad normative judgments about the social utilities or costs of civilian firearms possession, offering instead a sober, scholarly, historical discussion of the Amendment's origins. Meticulously tracing the British history of regulations on firearms ownership from the Middle Ages on, she provides a detailed and illuminating history that includes the English Bill of Rights and, a century later, the American one. Because it is only in this historical context that the Second Amendment's meaning can be fully understood and appreciated, Malcolm's book is essential reading for anyone interested in this complex and controversial subject.