221
Post by: Frazzled
SCOTUS rules US citizens have a right to bear arms
landmark change in view
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns
Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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 basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
About damn time  stupid gun laws the only people a gun law hurts is the law abiding citizens not the bad guys
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Interesting, I wasn't aware it had never been challenged in court in that way. I also wasn't aware there were areas in the US that had handgun bans (barring the obvious).
It does seem that gun control would be difficult to set up in the US nowadays, but I'm glad to live in a place that never had loose gun laws to start with.
Different strokes for different folks.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Remember-guns don't kill people. Husbands that come home early kill people...
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Heh heh.
Well, even with strict gun control you can still end up with gun crime. And syringe crime. Yay. Some junkie stabs ya with a syringe full of infected blood. Quite common over here in places. I'd rather be shot.
(Well, not really since the chances of infection for HIV is quite low. Still, any of the hep viruses are pretty tough and therefore easily communicable.)
241
Post by: Ahtman
Something isn't right here. I know that the court has had to rule on second amendment issues before, though it has been many many years. This isn't the first time. Though "major" decision may be the grey area the author is dancing in.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote:Something isn't right here. I know that the court has had to rule on second amendment issues before, though it has been many many years. This isn't the first time. Though "major" decision may be the grey area the author is dancing in.
It is the first time SCOTUS found that the 2nd Amendment means what it says it means - the right of individual citizens to own firearms.
4599
Post by: Alpharius Walks
Ahtman wrote:Something isn't right here. I know that the court has had to rule on second amendment issues before, though it has been many many years. This isn't the first time. Though "major" decision may be the grey area the author is dancing in.
Past SCOTUS jurisprudence has focused on tangential issues of the 2nd Amendment, most famously the question of whether or not a sawed-off shotgun is a weapon necessary for the "preservation or efficiency of well-regulated militia," and perhaps most recently the definition of the word "carries" in firearms statutes. As jfrazell points out, it had not previously addressed the question of the degree to which the 2nd Amendment constitutes an individual right.
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
We had our guns taken off us here in Oz back in 1996 when a nutter went and shot a whole pile of people.
Travelling through the US last year for some reason at airports discussion with USAans in the line always ended up being about the right to bear arms and they were flabbergasted that we don't have ready access to firearms and we were a littl eoffset at how much people love their firearms.
A couple on our bus tour from Oklahoma city have a pistol in every room including the toilet! Now I know that is pretty far edge extreme but I guess if someone bursts in on you whilst you are taking a dump you want to be prepared...
4936
Post by: VermGho5t
Posting some of the excerpts from the Heller case, as I am a gun owner and hunter, and this ruling was important and interesting to me. What is more disturbing to me is that it wasn't a 9-0 vote, and that the Liberal judges embraced the old militia rationalization without recognizing the need and requirement of having the inherent right to self defense. Also, it is very good to read that the ruling also went as far to say limitations to storage and ammunition (I think) type was unconstitutional as well.
Excerpts from Thursday's 5-4 Supreme Court decision striking down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.
___
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority:
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one's home and family,' would fail constitutional muster."
___
Scalia, on the requirement that handguns be kept inoperable:
"We must also address the District's requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
___
Scalia, on the scope of the ruling:
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
___
Scalia's concluding remarks:
"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of the nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
___
Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent:
"Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court's announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations."
___
Justice Stephen Breyer, in dissent:
"The majority's conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens — namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But, self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern.
"The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves."
*edit* my mistake it was limitations to the storage of a weapon in order to use it that was ruled as unconstitutional.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Well the dissent argument held sway through the 18th and 19th century, and much of the early 20th, so it isn't that unbelievable that some people would think that.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
How does this affect my right to Bear arms?
5470
Post by: sebster
I don't think the ruling is really all that big a deal, to be honest. Ruling that there is a right to bear arms is a pretty plain text reading, to be honest. It makes no comment on the regulation and control schemes of other states and municipalities, or on how onerous those schemes can be.
688
Post by: lord_sutekh
This is judicial legislation. When considering a law, you have to consider it in the timeframe it was written, not current events. When the 2nd Amendment was framed, it concerned retaining firearms to serve as militia when the colony/state was threatened. There is nothing in the Amendment concerning personal protection; those laws have been developed by the states and local authorities over time by those who are permitted, by law, to make new law: the legislatures. How strange, that those who decry judicial activism are silent when that activism benefits them.
If people want self-defense and home-defense-weaponry enshrined in the Constitution, they should work toward an Amendment to that effect. And I don't care who you are; you don't need an automatic weapon to defend your house. If you need full-auto to hit a target, you are a threat to yourself and your loved ones, not a home-defender.
5470
Post by: sebster
lord_sutekh wrote:This is judicial legislation. When considering a law, you have to consider it in the timeframe it was written, not current events. When the 2nd Amendment was framed, it concerned retaining firearms to serve as militia when the colony/state was threatened. There is nothing in the Amendment concerning personal protection; those laws have been developed by the states and local authorities over time by those who are permitted, by law, to make new law: the legislatures. How strange, that those who decry judicial activism are silent when that activism benefits them.
If people want self-defense and home-defense-weaponry enshrined in the Constitution, they should work toward an Amendment to that effect. And I don't care who you are; you don't need an automatic weapon to defend your house. If you need full-auto to hit a target, you are a threat to yourself and your loved ones, not a home-defender.
The ruling in the case is that while the 2nd amendment mentions a well regulated militia, there is nothing saying this is the only reason, or even the most important reason for the ownership of weapons. So by the interpretation of this court, the reason for the weapon is not the key, the right itself is paramount.
And I’m not sure why you’re talking about fully auto weapons. This case was about DC’s ban on handguns.
I agree about the cries of judicial activism. Watch the right swing around to celebrate the constitution as they lose power in the next election, while the left starts complaining about judges over ruling the will of the people.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I think Activist Judge, if looked up in th dictionary, is described as "a judge who made a ruling you disagree with".
4936
Post by: VermGho5t
There's a post on this forum for a flight sim I play that has a good sort of summarization of the ruling, found here. It's a bit long (4 pages) but highlights the realities of the ruling, the judges opinion towards his coleagues, and some of the other people's opinions of it.
As far as automatic weapons being used for home defense, lord_sutekh you're jumping to conclusions as there has been an automatic weapon ban in place since the 20's or 30's after all the organized crime in midwest/eastern cities. If you read the excerpts from Scalia in a few posts above he mentions firearms that in common usage.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Thats...that's quite a forum there. I especially liked this:
I don't recall electing Breyer to legislate from the bench on issues beyond the scope of Constitutionality.
If the board owner gets paid every time someone says activist judge, he's going to have a good month it seems.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Ahtman wrote:Thats...that's quite a forum there.
Whole pile of lulz, I especially liked I often wonder if the anti-gun crowd ever pondered the fact that an additional reason most enemy army's may shy away from attacking the us...is the fact that we have such a well armed citizenry. no doubt that has to be a legit concern...and no doubt...that sheds light on the forward thinking of our founding fathers.
almost fell off of my chair laughing at that gem. I'm sure that whole massive number of countries queuing up to invade the USA are having second thoughts even as we speak.
Thought that Mr. Guppy35 seemed to speak a whole lot of sense there though.
From the linked articles and opinions it would seem that the correct decision was made from a legalistic point of view ( that being the point of course).
But as an outsider : It really is a real mystery why you septics get so obsessed with guns, really don't get it. I suppose part of it is we don't hear "good" or "postive" stories relating to gun ownership-- I guess it might be hard to actual prove such tales either way. We tend just to hear stories like this tale of woe but I guess that says more about individual stupidity than anything else possibly.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
lord_sutekh wrote:This is judicial legislation.
Actually, supporting the ban would be judicial legislation, since the ban is unconstitutional.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Exactly.
This impacts other rights. If you affirm "the people" as not being everyday citizens, then most of the Bill of Rights is meaningless. It also strains credulity that the Bill of Rights meant that the government was allowing itself to have auxillary troops. Its like saying the government allows itself to have governemnt employees. Er..ok.
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
The second ammendment is one of those things that makes me wish I had a time machine.
Look at the historical context of the laws.
A revolutionary nation throws off their former colonial rulers using a citizen militia. This is lauded as the ultimate defence of democracy - if you don't give us rights we can take those rights by force.
That same citizen militia now has a legitimate concern. What if the new government we have established takes away our arms in the name of peace and security, but then morphs into a despotic regime. How will we reclaim our rights? Hence the second ammendment.
I do wonder though, if you had a time machine and could show them a future America with a standing army, strong police force, universal democracy and suffrage - and a murder rate using guns that runs at 100 times (approx) that of the UK, Australia, France, Japan and Germany COMBINED! Whether they would have written the ammendment in quite the same way...
just my $0.02
221
Post by: Frazzled
Chimera_Calvin wrote:The second ammendment is one of those things that makes me wish I had a time machine.
Look at the historical context of the laws.
A revolutionary nation throws off their former colonial rulers using a citizen militia. This is lauded as the ultimate defence of democracy - if you don't give us rights we can take those rights by force.
That same citizen militia now has a legitimate concern. What if the new government we have established takes away our arms in the name of peace and security, but then morphs into a despotic regime. How will we reclaim our rights? Hence the second ammendment.
I do wonder though, if you had a time machine and could show them a future America with a standing army, strong police force, universal democracy and suffrage - and a murder rate using guns that runs at 100 times (approx) that of the UK, Australia, France, Japan and Germany COMBINED! Whether they would have written the ammendment in quite the same way...
just my $0.02
Nope.
Then we show them the actual murder rates in those countries, they might make it mandatory for citizenry to have firearms, instead of optional.
Then we backtrack and show them the conflicts common citizens had moving West. Indeed, this nation was not founded by the US army. It was founded by everyday citizens pushing West.
Be careful what you wish for. They might look back at the nightmare fo the Civil War and put some dastardly thing about slaves not being humans or something. At best Franklin might get a hold of an M-16 or something and start making assault rifles to defeat the "native savages." Or they might discover fajitas, and immediately invade the lands of Nuevo Mexico, causing a second defacto war with Spain. but for fajitas, it would be worth it 
5394
Post by: reds8n
Nope.
Then we show them the actual murder rates in those countries, they might make it mandatory for citizenry to have firearms, instead of optional.
You're really going to have to explain this one as what you've written doesn't make any sense at all. Even proportionally the murder rate of the countries Mr. CC listed is vastly lower than that of the USA.
Optional fireamrs in most of the countries listed ?  Not legally.
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
Sorry, wasn't quite clear there. Total population of UK + France + Germany + Japan + Australia is approximately equal to the total population of the US.
In one year (I forget which it was) there were 32,000 gun-related deaths across the USA. The total number of gun related deaths in the same year in the other countries mentioned was about 300.
These figures were actually quoted in a 'West Wing' episode followed by the line "Do you think that Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or is it that those guys have gun control laws?". An old adage comes to mind about true words spoken in jest.
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
When it comes to the US guns are a HUGE part of our history. if it wasn't for guns we would not have our indentays. Basically the 2nd amendment was put in for a fail safe if said government goes dictatorship change it. On a side note i bet if you asked Jews after the Holocaust if it was a good idea to turn there guns in. Because Hitler put in to law firearms were illegal . And when it comes to crime 90% of guns used where stolen and to boot the shoot wasn't aloud to own a firearm. I'm thankful for the 2nd. if it was for me having a concealed carry permit i would be died. When in Texas i was getting in my car and a young man about 20 came up to me asking for money.i asked why? He then started to give me a speech about drugs and he was getting money to help kids as he was talking to me, 5 big Mexicans come to my car from my blind side .I saw them and at the last minutes i SAID VERY LOUDLY here let me give you some money i then pulled my Glock17 the youth then yell in Spanish i think gun and run like hell all five big guys stopped and run off. if i didn't have my gun guess what i think i would be dead right now. After fighting over seas you get gut instises and you go with them. thats why i love the 2nd it gives us the right to defend ourselves. my .03
221
Post by: Frazzled
Chimera_Calvin wrote:Sorry, wasn't quite clear there. Total population of UK + France + Germany + Japan + Australia is approximately equal to the total population of the US.
In one year (I forget which it was) there were 32,000 gun-related deaths across the USA. The total number of gun related deaths in the same year in the other countries mentioned was about 300.
These figures were actually quoted in a 'West Wing' episode followed by the line "Do you think that Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or is it that those guys have gun control laws?". An old adage comes to mind about true words spoken in jest.
Total murders, not just murders with firearms. Once that is incorporated in, US murder rates are strictly middling.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Some quotes on original intent by the framers:
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)
“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense…” -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244. Author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” -Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution…
Edit: and from the Great One himself
"A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." George Washington, Boston Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790
"To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." George Washington
1099
Post by: Railguns
Thanks Jfrazell, I was about to look those up. Every time another gun control argument pops up, I wonder whether everybody forgot the 18th Amendment, and how well that went over. I didn't even realize that this was an issue until I heard about it on the radio last week. Anyway, people somehow have this idea that because the ideas behind the constitution are old, they must be obsolete. Has anyone ever actually read a copy of the Federalist papers? It is more relevant than people like to think.
241
Post by: Ahtman
UK + France + Germany + Japan + Australia actually jumps the US population by about 30~40 million, but close enough. The problem I see though is that Japan makes up a disproportionate percentage and is a radically different culture then the rest. their suicide rate alone is far higher than anyone else on the list.
I always think it is tough to try and create equivalences between different cultures. There are so many factors to take into consideration outside the most simplistic two number analysis.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Well if you had to eat raw fish everyday, you'd be pretty suicidal too. 
5394
Post by: reds8n
jfrazell wrote:Some quotes on original intent by the framers:
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)
Indeed.
The rest of the world sits, watches, and wishes you were.
Worthy as many of the rest of the quotes are, one cannot but help wonder if they still would have made them given the horrors of 2 World Wars and the unimaginable destructive capability that "civilised" nations now posses.
221
Post by: Frazzled
We were what?
Wouldn’t have given them given the horrors of WWI and WWII? What?
That’s a nonsequitor, I’m not seeing what the rights I have as a US citizen to own a replica Colt Peacemaker have to do with the Europeans and their penchant for starting world wars.
5470
Post by: sebster
skullspliter888 wrote:When it comes to the US guns are a HUGE part of our history. if it wasn't for guns we would not have our indentays. Basically the 2nd amendment was put in for a fail safe if said government goes dictatorship change it. On a side note i bet if you asked Jews after the Holocaust if it was a good idea to turn there guns in. Because Hitler put in to law firearms were illegal . And when it comes to crime 90% of guns used where stolen and to boot the shoot wasn't aloud to own a firearm. I'm thankful for the 2nd. if it was for me having a concealed carry permit i would be died. When in Texas i was getting in my car and a young man about 20 came up to me asking for money.i asked why? He then started to give me a speech about drugs and he was getting money to help kids as he was talking to me, 5 big Mexicans come to my car from my blind side .I saw them and at the last minutes i SAID VERY LOUDLY here let me give you some money i then pulled my Glock17 the youth then yell in Spanish i think gun and run like hell all five big guys stopped and run off. if i didn't have my gun guess what i think i would be dead right now. After fighting over seas you get gut instises and you go with them. thats why i love the 2nd it gives us the right to defend ourselves. my .03
Hitler didn't put firearms control into place, you've bought into an old myth there. The Weimar government introduced laws to limit access of firearms to the Nazis, which were largely effective and probably helped stop the escalation of violence between the Nazis and the communists. When the Nazis gained power, they used those laws to control the firearms access of their opponents, but by that point the domestic struggle was all but over.
But that's only a small part of the story, the Nazis came to power through elections, not armed struggle. When they began breaking the constitution they faced few challenges at all, let alone from groups willing to take up armed resistance. See, the truth is that most oppressive governments play up to the kinds of folk that favour gun ownership, playing on their nationalism to gain their support. In Saddam's Iraq guns were allowed and common in houses - yet resistance was minimal.
In short, relying on private ownership of firearms to protect you from a bad government is very naive. Protection from your government comes from ensuring open and accountable government actions, watchdog groups, and constant protection and expansion of civil liberties.
There are plenty of other valid arguments for guns. They can be used in self defence. They can be used in hunting. They're cool. The evidence that gun control leads to a reduction in gun crime is marginal at best. But as a means to control government, guns are utter rubbish.
5394
Post by: reds8n
jfrazell wrote:We were what?
resisting against tyranny in Government
That’s a nonsequitor, I’m not seeing what the rights I have as a US citizen to own a replica Colt Peacemaker have to do with the Europeans and their penchant for starting world wars.
Strawman distraction FTW ! You, good sir, i know are capable of a better argument than that, I've read your posts and I know you are capable of better here. 
The WW X line was to do with the frankly unimaginable level of destructive capability "we" now possess with regards to both guns and other forms of warfare.
Let's face it, the sheer size of the USA pretty much renders any plausible attempt at full occupation impossible. let's be honest the only way you'll ever be conquered is either through mass destruction on an apocalyptic scale or natural disaster.
... hmm.. or possibly through the machinations of Simon Cowell for which I apologies in advance whilst welcoming our new phone voted overlords !
221
Post by: Frazzled
sebster wrote:skullspliter888 wrote:
In short, relying on private ownership of firearms to protect you from a bad government is very naive. Protection from your government comes from ensuring open and accountable government actions, watchdog groups, and constant protection and expansion of civil liberties.
There are plenty of other valid arguments for guns. They can be used in self defence. They can be used in hunting. They're cool. The evidence that gun control leads to a reduction in gun crime is marginal at best. But as a means to control government, guns are utter rubbish.
Tell that to Morgan Tsvangirai:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91791867
Mugabe's Opponent Quits amid Escalating Violence
Listen Now [5 min 40 sec] add to playlist
Morning Edition, June 23, 2008 · In Zimbabwe, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew Sunday from the upcoming runoff election. Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, said he's stepping down because he can no longer watch his supporters being killed for the sake of power.
5394
Post by: reds8n
The same guy whose followers are being oppressed by an armed militia that is entirely seprate from the offical armed forces ?
... wait.. you're now arguing that an armed citizen militia is a bad thing ?
221
Post by: Frazzled
reds8n wrote:jfrazell wrote:We were what?
resisting against tyranny in Government
That’s a nonsequitor, I’m not seeing what the rights I have as a US citizen to own a replica Colt Peacemaker have to do with the Europeans and their penchant for starting world wars.
Strawman distraction FTW ! You, good sir, i know are capable of a better argument than that, I've read your posts and I know you are capable of better here.
The WW X line was to do with the frankly unimaginable level of destructive capability "we" now possess with regards to both guns and other forms of warfare.
Let's face it, the sheer size of the USA pretty much renders any plausible attempt at full occupation impossible. let's be honest the only way you'll ever be conquered is either through mass destruction on an apocalyptic scale or natural disaster.
... hmm.. or possibly through the machinations of Simon Cowell for which I apologies in advance whilst welcoming our new phone voted overlords !
No not strawman argument. I seriously am not understanding what you're trying to say my man..er...eye?
221
Post by: Frazzled
reds8n wrote:The same guy whose followers are being opressed by an armed militia that is entirely separte from the offical armed forces ?
... wait.. you're now arguing that an armed citizen militia is a bad thing ?
The "armed militia" is effectively an arm of the dictator.
And yes, you will pay for the horror of Simon Cowell. As soon as we can find wherever Michael jackson ran off too, he's comin' your way mu ah hah hah 
5394
Post by: reds8n
In which case I apologise wholeheartedly.. thought you were better than that 
I'm not disputing your right to own a replica. I am disputing the relevance of claiming the founding fathers-- wise as I freely acknowledge they seem to have been, I'd (literally) kill for a constitution like yours over here-- I really don't think they were capable of envisioning the carnage that future weapons would make possible. For the sheer fact of the .. hmm.. "outdatedness" is the wrong word but I hope you'll see what I mean for the moment-- view of weaponry seems obvious to me that it needs looking at as a rule.
NOTE : that said, I hope you'll note i have already and continue to, agree that the initial decision of the judges in question does not and should not, have the jurisdiction to decide this. that should be, and I hope continues to be, the province of the American people themselves through the ballot box.
It's just-- as I said earlier- we, hell, the rest of the world really doesn't get your obsession with this issue.
I'll grant you that often unless you're actively involved in a scenario/situation it's not uncommon to fail to comprehend fully the gravitas of a thing.... but.... but... well, you;re America ! You were our last great hope really and it seems-- and I freely acknowlege a media bias possibly-- can you ?-- that you've stopped trying to build a better brighter future not just for your own citizens but foer the world in general.
.. wow, that reads back a tad more emtional than I intended, teach me to A; drink whilst posting and B: growup reading Justice League comics and watching westerns. 
EDIT : The "armed militia" is effectively an arm of the dictator.
as opposed to Rockerfelle/Local factory owner/Fox Network/Simon Cowell?Michael Jack.. well, alright maybe not him !.. except the junior brigade perhaps ...
An armed militia is always under the control of someone yes ? The problem being whom exactly surely /
EDIT 2 : i only just got the "eye" line.. thought you were trying British Slang or something !
221
Post by: Frazzled
I see, the founding fathers (and their better haves) didn’t have the wherewithal to envision heavy arms. True that. However, its also the argument that other rights takers (on both sides of the aisle) use for a plethora of rights.
*Its not a ballot box issue.
*Its not about changing times.
*Its not about whether this or that of the Bill of Rights are helpful or harmful.
It’s the Constitution. Arguments for and against are irrelevant. We have the right (to paaartteeyy? hey it is Friday).
EDIT 2 : i only just got the "eye" line.. thought you were trying British Slang or something !
5534
Post by: dogma
jfrazell wrote:reds8n wrote:The same guy whose followers are being opressed by an armed militia that is entirely separte from the offical armed forces ?
... wait.. you're now arguing that an armed citizen militia is a bad thing ?
The "armed militia" is effectively an arm of the dictator.
Is the point that the opposition would have the ability to overthrow Mugabe if they were armed? Becasue, unless their armaments permitted them the capacity to oppose Mugabe's formal military, that simply is not the case. Free access to reasonable firearms, as they are defined in the United States, does absolutely nothing to prevent the inception of a tyrannical regime. Even owning an assault weapon will do little in the face of an organized military.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Gor blimey Guvnor ! Luv a duck ! Apples and pears, trouble and strife etc etc.
Surely though the point of being able to amened such a worthy document shows that the basic concept of alteration is relevant though yes ?
The fact that all the laws and people of the USA have to be legally justified has always been the shining hope I see in the American system.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Gor blimey Guvnor ! Luv a duck ! Apples and pears, trouble and strife etc etc.
Surely though the point of being able to amened such a worthy document shows that the basic concept of alteration is relevant though yes ?
The fact that all the laws and people of the USA have to be legally justified has always been the shining hope I see in the American system.
Amending the US Constitution is difficult at best. Excluding the Bill of Rights, there have been, what 18 amendments? 2-3 took the bloodiest war in US history, one was an adjustment for VP and succession (good in case we get nuked), and two revolve around beverages of a fermented nature .
To amend you need 2/3 state's approval (not their representatives, the actual states).
As for the power of simple weaponry, the AK and its rocket launching best buddy the RPG have won more wars than any other ranged weapon system in history. And yep, they'd be pretty good against the likes of Mugabe's thugs.
4936
Post by: VermGho5t
I'm not trying to be off-topic here (but I am) but, I think part of America's problem reds8n in how it conducts itself globally is that our society is coming to grips with the decline of the of the last 50-60 years of Cold War indoctrination of our culture.
There's a quote that Scalia made public in his notes, that very articulately (?sp?) pointed out the hackness of Breyer and Stevens:
After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interestbalanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam).
The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.[/b]
Enough monkeying around for me, I need to paint some marines!
5534
Post by: dogma
jfrazell wrote:
As for the power of simple weaponry, the AK and its rocket launching best buddy the RPG have won more wars than any other ranged weapon system in history. And yep, they'd be pretty good against the likes of Mugabe's thugs.
Mugabe's thugs, the militia, are ill-equppied weapons of terror. His military, however, is actually quite well developed by virtue of a development partnership undertaken with SA a number of years back. Combine that with the type of brutally indescriminate tactics associated with his regime and even RPGs and AKs will have difficulty unseating him.
Moreover, I challenge you to find an instance in which a non-state militia has won a conflict without the support of some foreign influence. AKs and RPGs may win battles, but someone has to pay for them, and it certainly isn't within the means of the average private citizen; especially not over the course of the kind of prolonged conflict implict within an armed insurrection.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Defining militia is a fluid event. Sure often they have help, but at the end of the day it’s the guerrilla with the rifle that does the trick.
USA
France (vive le Napoleon!)
Russia
Ireland
Vietnam
Mexico
Nicaragua
Most countries within Africa
Balkans
Afghanistan (several times)
As for AK’s being expensive-you can get an AK for $50US in much of the world. Its not a problem.
But again, none of this has anything to do with the Second Amendment. It’s a right US citizens have. Whether its logical in modern times is irrelevant.
4713
Post by: efarrer
jfrazell wrote:
Total murders, not just murders with firearms. Once that is incorporated in, US murder rates are strictly middling.
Relative to which other nations?
Seriously, look at homicide rates in general wikipedia has the information readily availble. Americans murder at a rate of more then double any of the other G7 nations.
No other G7 nation is even close. Yeah the US middling in murder rates when you include such shining lights as Russia, Columbia and pakistan. Hardly the best comparison points.
The need for (hand)guns is part of America's mythology. You are in McViegh land if you seriously believe you need guns to protect yourself from your government. If you even half believe that become involved politically, and quit buying the diesel and fertilizer.
4713
Post by: efarrer
dogma wrote:jfrazell wrote:
As for the power of simple weaponry, the AK and its rocket launching best buddy the RPG have won more wars than any other ranged weapon system in history. And yep, they'd be pretty good against the likes of Mugabe's thugs.
Mugabe's thugs, the militia, are ill-equppied weapons of terror. His military, however, is actually quite well developed by virtue of a development partnership undertaken with SA a number of years back. Combine that with the type of brutally indescriminate tactics associated with his regime and even RPGs and AKs will have difficulty unseating him.
Moreover, I challenge you to find an instance in which a non-state militia has won a conflict without the support of some foreign influence. AKs and RPGs may win battles, but someone has to pay for them, and it certainly isn't within the means of the average private citizen; especially not over the course of the kind of prolonged conflict implict within an armed insurrection.
America (the communication delay being what it was at the time made that a partially winable situation, keeping in mind, the failure to sieze the entire continent)?
Cuba?
Mexico?
Most of South America?
Zimbabwea?
241
Post by: Ahtman
Well, America and Cuba almost certainly had outside sources helping, not 100% on the others though.
5534
Post by: dogma
jfrazell wrote:Defining militia is a fluid event. Sure often they have help, but at the end of the day it’s the guerrilla with the rifle that does the trick.
USA
France (vive le Napoleon!)
Russia
Ireland
Vietnam
Mexico
Nicaragua
Most countries within Africa
Balkans
Afghanistan (several times)
Whether or not the guerrilla is considered the agent of change is really a matter of causal preference and perspective. I generally prefer to fall on the defacto powers as being the truly necessary elements in governing in determining the outcome of any revolution. That said, many of you example are not instances which I would consider to fall under the term militia. Some of them certainly do, like the USA, but those almost unfailingly depended heavily on the support of some third party.
US < France, Poland (viva Pulaski!), anyone who didn't like the brits
France & Russia < Insurrections founded on the stress of prolonged conflict in a climate of overall political uncertainty; the February Revolution effectively divided power between the interim government of Russia and the populist Soviets while the storming of the Bastille had a similar effect in France. Essentially there was no government in either of these cases.
Ireland < The IRA only secured independence after outside social pressure required it.
Vietnam < China, Soviet Union
Mexico < Segments of the Spanish nobility actually served to support this rebellion, essentially the government turned on itself
Nicaragua < the US
Africa < most countries in Africa never had formal governments to begin with, at least not as we think of them in the context of Western political history
Balkans < something of a synthesis between Africa and the French/Russian revolution, no real government
Afghanistan < WW1 freed them from the Brits and the USA freed them from the Soviets (exe: stinger missiles used against Hind attack helos by mujahadeen)
jfrazell wrote:
As for AK’s being expensive-you can get an AK for $50US in much of the world. Its not a problem.
$50US is also alot of money in significant tracts of the world where the average worker doesn't make $1US a day.
jfrazell wrote:But again, none of this has anything to do with the Second Amendment. It’s a right US citizens have. Whether its logical in modern times is irrelevant.
You are correct, though I disagree with your absolute interpretation of the 2nd.
5164
Post by: Stelek
Sorry, were Euros comparing their apples to our oranges?
Always funny.
I know, if you install ANOTHER 500,000 cameras in London, will the west end be safe or will it not be safe?
I feel safer walking the ghettos of the US than I do in London.
Laziest worst coppers I've ever had the misfortune to have to deal with.
Make sure when the facial recognition technology goes in that you add laws for the government to hold you for 42 days without recourse to the law for making an angry face.
Duh.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Helpful as ever.
Much as I deplore the unwarranted spread of CCTV in the Uk in general, it's a pretty safe place.
I asume you've extemsively trawled through all parts of London then ? Oh, wait...
We generally stopped calling them coppers in the late 1970s. Still good to see your slang is as up to date as your knowledge of what the situation actually is over here.
Now, I believe you were saying something about apples and oranges...
241
Post by: Ahtman
Are you trying to imply that a foreigner may not be as up to date on the slang as a native?
My mind is blown. You just blew my mind.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Like way dude ! Schwing !
.... no ?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I don't really want to get dragged into this, because I think the problem of gun control in the US is very complex and I don't know enough about it.
But!
Stelek, you're an american giving out about the British holding people without trial? That's just classic.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Well they used to steal our sailors and were still pretty bitter about that.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Are you sure you're not really an Iranian ?
5470
Post by: sebster
jfrazell wrote:Tell that to Morgan Tsvangirai:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91791867
Mugabe's Opponent Quits amid Escalating Violence
Listen Now [5 min 40 sec] add to playlist
Morning Edition, June 23, 2008 · In Zimbabwe, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew Sunday from the upcoming runoff election. Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, said he's stepping down because he can no longer watch his supporters being killed for the sake of power.
Pointing out there's a country out there with a bad man in charge doesn't really prove a whole hell of a lot about gun laws. You need to demonstrate that guns would actually solve the problem. The most immediate problem with just assuming guns would keep government in line is to look at Iraq, where under Saddam civilians had access to AK-47s, yet there was no meaningful resistance.
A brief study of political history demonstrates their is simply no reason to think that a lack of guns is a factor in many tyranical governments. What is lacking is organisation and will, once those are present weaponry isn't that much of problem.
You mention in a latter post that there doesn't need to be any underlying reason for gun ownership, it's in the constitution and barring an amendment that's the end of the issue. I completely agree, because keeping to the constitution, the fundamental laws of your country, is a cornerstone of maintaining a free society. Maintaining and protecting the laws of government is one of the very important parts of ensuring civil liberties, far more important than access to small arms.
241
Post by: Ahtman
How about apartheid in South Africa? They tried to organize all the time, it's just that their leaders and members were imprisoned or executed. Do you think they could have gotten away with it if the tiny amount of Whites were looking at an armed (and not a small number) majority?
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
Off topic.
@jfrazell - just going through your list of effective guerilla actions.
USA. Yup - with the help of the French, Pirates (sorry, Privateers) and a British economy which could not at that point sustain an effective military across 3,000 miles of ocean.
France (vive le Napoleon!). No - that was a military coup, not a guerilla action.
Russia.
Ireland. Only if you ignore the fact that there had been considerable political will in sections of the British government for nearly 40 years for Irish home rule.
Vietnam.
Mexico. Definately the only success story!
Nicaragua. True, but the guerillas have generally been drug lords, so not a good thing.
Most countries within Africa. And look where its got them - Mugabe anyone?
Balkans. With a little help from NATO.
Afghanistan (several times). See Nicaragua.
After eliminating ones which were not genuinely unsupported guerilla forces fighting for a political cause (with no associated criminal motivation) we're left with Mexico and the communists.
I have to say I'm not entirely convinced its always been a good thing in the long run...
Back on topic.
@sebster. You're absolutely right, laws are far more important than guns. But surely the point of laws is that they can be changed?
The framers could never have envisaged the vast majority of US laws as the years have gone by, nor the various amendments to the constitution. What they did provide in their wisdom was a mechanism for those laws to be changed to better reflect future society.
If a law (or in this case a constitutional amendment that can in itself be altered or repealed) is a contributing factor in so many deaths each year (it is an undeniable fact that if guns were illegal and conommitantly rare there would be fewer gun-related deaths in the US), then surely there is a case for that to be changed?
Is it not a better way of honouring the foresight of the founding fathers to use their mechanism of change, rather than a law which no longer has the relevance it possessed 200 years ago?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It must be remembered that when the United States were created, it was by no means certain that the union would prevail as a harmonious political arrangement. Therefore state militias were an important part of asserting the rights of individual states. The constitution was written at that time and was undoubetdly influenced by that climate.
That said, the way the issue (and other issues such as abortion and Intelligent Design) continue to raise such hackles, is in itself an indicator of the admirable degree of political freedom and debate that goes on in the US. I am put in mind of the current repression of completely harmless photography in the UK, which continues almost without comment.
It is interesting to contrast the gun cultures of the USA, Canada and Switzerland. Canada has fairly similar gun laws to the USA, and the gun crime rate is much lower. Switzerland has very different laws. It is compulsory to be armed to the teeth, since Switzerland has a real citizen militia army, so every citizen has at least an assault rifle at home. Once again the gun crime rate is very low. This seems to indicate that the availability of guns and laws concerning them is strongly modified by social attitudes.
The fact is that gun culture has deep roots in the USA. There are reckoned to be well over 200 million weapons in circulation. They are not going to disappear overnight, nor is the popular culture going to change suddenly.
I don't know whether being armed is a good defensive strategy. The knife crime stats in the UK show clearly that people carrying knives are much more likely to die in knife fights than unarmed people. Of course this is no doubt influence by social attitudes and may not apply to guns in the USA.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ahtman wrote:How about apartheid in South Africa? They tried to organize all the time, it's just that their leaders and members were imprisoned or executed. Do you think they could have gotten away with it if the tiny amount of Whites were looking at an armed (and not a small number) majority?
Ah, Mandela led the armed resistance in South Africa, undertook sabotage and trained in paramilitary operations. The guerilla campaing led to the deaths of a lot of civilians were killed and human rights abuses were committed by the black resistance fighters. The effect of these operations in hastening or prolonging the end of apartheid is a contentious issue.
5470
Post by: sebster
Chimera_Calvin wrote:@sebster. You're absolutely right, laws are far more important than guns. But surely the point of laws is that they can be changed?
The framers could never have envisaged the vast majority of US laws as the years have gone by, nor the various amendments to the constitution. What they did provide in their wisdom was a mechanism for those laws to be changed to better reflect future society.
If a law (or in this case a constitutional amendment that can in itself be altered or repealed) is a contributing factor in so many deaths each year (it is an undeniable fact that if guns were illegal and conommitantly rare there would be fewer gun-related deaths in the US), then surely there is a case for that to be changed?
Is it not a better way of honouring the foresight of the founding fathers to use their mechanism of change, rather than a law which no longer has the relevance it possessed 200 years ago?
Yeah, laws can be changed. Basic laws require a simple majority of representatives to change, other laws such as those in the constitution are much tougher to change. Being part of the constitution, the US right to arms is in that second category, and so has a far more demanding method for change. Ultimately, if 2/3 of states wanted to remove or restrict the right to arms, then things will and should change.
Personally, I think the US would be better off enforcing the gun laws it already has and working to reduce gun crime through programs designed to reduce gang numbers, rehabilitate criminals, reduce poverty and develop sensible drug laws. Gun control is ultimately neither the solution nor the problem.
241
Post by: Ahtman
sebster wrote:Ahtman wrote:How about apartheid in South Africa? They tried to organize all the time, it's just that their leaders and members were imprisoned or executed. Do you think they could have gotten away with it if the tiny amount of Whites were looking at an armed (and not a small number) majority?
Ah, Mandela led the armed resistance in South Africa, undertook sabotage and trained in paramilitary operations. The guerilla campaing led to the deaths of a lot of civilians were killed and human rights abuses were committed by the black resistance fighters. The effect of these operations in hastening or prolonging the end of apartheid is a contentious issue.
Sounds like a lot of National Party propaganda to me.
5164
Post by: Stelek
reds8n wrote:Helpful as ever.
Much as I deplore the unwarranted spread of CCTV in the Uk in general, it's a pretty safe place.
I asume you've extemsively trawled through all parts of London then ? Oh, wait...
We generally stopped calling them coppers in the late 1970s. Still good to see your slang is as up to date as your knowledge of what the situation actually is over here.
Now, I believe you were saying something about apples and oranges...
Wait, I have to be helpful?
I've traveled through London.
Enjoyed my time there when I was in the Navy.
Oh wait, I didn't.
I can call your cops lots of things. Idiots, morons, pigs, asshats, the blue crayon...I mean, which adjective meets with your approval?
YOU DON'T GET A VOTE!
Especially with how ignorant you seem to be about how safe your country is (handgun crime up? WTF?!) and how wonderful sunny London is.
Try googling some actual statistics. Your government has them available online, so does your media. They're sad. Like you, really.
CCTV LONDON NO CRIME DETERRENCE
UK HANDGUN BAN GUN CRIME UP
Bloody twit.
Do you "get" that one, mate?
5164
Post by: Stelek
sebster wrote:Personally, I think the US would be better off enforcing the gun laws it already has and working to reduce gun crime through programs designed to reduce gang numbers, rehabilitate criminals, reduce poverty and develop sensible drug laws. Gun control is ultimately neither the solution nor the problem.
Never happen. Our absolutely horrible police/justice/prison system has waaay too much money coming in keeping blacks incarcerated to ever do any of that nonsense.
See, I'm just a equal opportunity ripper.
Bull is bull.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ahtman wrote:Sounds like a lot of National Party propaganda to me.
It can sound like whatever you want it to. It's a matter of national record identified at the Truth and Reconciliation hearings.
Mandela and his fellow anti-apartheid fighters were great people and it does none of them proper respect to pretend the fight was happier or more pleasant than it really was.
5470
Post by: sebster
Stelek wrote:Never happen. Our absolutely horrible police/justice/prison system has waaay too much money coming in keeping blacks incarcerated to ever do any of that nonsense.
See, I'm just a equal opportunity ripper.
Bull is bull.
Ooh that's another good one. Moving away from privatised prisons with zero incentive to prevent repeat offence, and towards government run prisons with rehabilitation programs.
241
Post by: Ahtman
sebster wrote:It's a matter of national record identified at the Truth and Reconciliation hearings.
Those hearing lacked both Truth and Reconciliation. It did however make for good press.
5164
Post by: Stelek
The government RUNS the prisons now.
Did we just pass in the night? lol
5470
Post by: sebster
Ahtman wrote:Those hearing lacked both Truth and Reconciliation. It did however make for good press.
Aah, okay, that’s certainly a fairly common criticism, albeit one I don’t agree with. There’s plenty of points to be made for either case.
Still doesn’t change the fact that there was armed resistance in South Africa, contrary to your earlier argument. You can look at plenty of other sources besides Truth and Reconciliation, it isn’t a disputed point.
5470
Post by: sebster
Stelek wrote:The government RUNS the prisons now.
Did we just pass in the night? lol
An increasing number of prisons in the US are run by private operators. The result is a lower cost per prisoner, but prisoner conditions and rehabilitation programs tend to suffer. The argument is that this increases recidivism, resulting in a long term increased cost to the taxpayer.
Of course, even under government control prisons are still pretty crappy. And like you said, racism.
5164
Post by: Stelek
Oh right, you mean like the camps they've got since they can stick 500 bastards out in a field with some wire and guns to keep them in?
Yeah, it's not good times.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Stelek wrote:
Wait, I have to be helpful?
Well there's a first time for everything, we live in hope...
I can call your cops lots of things. Idiots, morons, pigs, asshats, the blue crayon...I mean, which adjective meets with your approval?
Of late the "hippest" term is babylon, the faux patois thing is the way at the moment. Other people use " the filth"
Especially with how ignorant you seem to be about how safe your country is (handgun crime up? WTF?!) and how wonderful sunny London is.
Try googling some actual statistics. Your government has them available online, so does your media. They're sad. Like you, really.
CCTV LONDON NO CRIME DETERRENCE
UK HANDGUN BAN GUN CRIME UP
Bloody twit.
Do you "get" that one, mate?
err.. okay...
According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year. That is an increase of 18% in just one year. There were 507 serious injuries from firearms - more than one incident a day.
But at the same time, the trend in gun crime overall has been going down.
A clearly terrifying wave of mass murder sweeping the nation.
Overall firearms offences, including air guns, fell 14% in 2006-07 from 21,527 incidents to 18,489
oh, maybe not...
I agree that CCTV isn't much or any of a deterent never said it was. Hate the growth of it.
They're sad. Like you, really
Gold, you show go into showbiz. I'm sure you'd do REALLY well.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote:Well they used to steal our sailors and were still pretty bitter about that.
Not the people in Louisiana. We had an anger management meeting with the redcoats about 1814. After that we were just fine
4713
Post by: efarrer
jfrazell wrote:Ahtman wrote:Well they used to steal our sailors and were still pretty bitter about that.
Not the people in Louisiana. We had an anger management meeting with the redcoats about 1814. After that we were just fine
I guess that's taking the lemons to make lemonade.
In a war where the aggressor got kicked back home and had thier capital sacked and burned celebrating the win after the war had already ended (and ignoring the subsequent loss at Mobile) I guess is making the best of a bad situation.
221
Post by: Frazzled
What does that matter? Its not like the Yankees ran the redcoats out the first time either. It was in the South with those gun totin wackjob militia types that the redcoats ran into trouble.
And I hope we’ve learned a lesson today. Swamp rats (the 18th Century’s pickup driving’ rednecks) + pirates + Napoleonic refugees lined up for a little payback vs. redcoats equals fun time had by all. Except the redcoats.
Remember its all fun and games until someone pokes their eye out. Then its fun and games with really bad depth perception.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Well lets also not forget all the Natives that helped Jackson out and then right after the battle were kicked out of their homes and land for the trouble.
221
Post by: Frazzled
This is true. Eventually the pirates were put out of business as well. The French speaking creoles were eventually repressed as well, with their language and culture banned from being spoken in schools.
Still beats having to eat blood pie though.
5394
Post by: reds8n
jfrazell wrote:
Still beats having to eat blood pie though.
 Curse you and your use of facts !
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
mmmm, Blood Pie....
241
Post by: Ahtman
jfrazell wrote:Still beats having to eat blood pie though.
Amen to that brother.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Blood pie eh? I had never heard of it, and assumed ye were talking about blood pudding which is awesome. I love black and white pudding, so much.
But I didn't want to go displaying my ignorance in case blood pie was something else, and I found this on a quick search (the rest of the links were to klingon cuisine, which I figured wasn't what ye were discussing  )
A Blood-pie for a Side-dish.
On those days that young Turkeys, fat Pullets and other sorts of Fowl are kill’d, some of their blood may be preserv’d, to the quantity only ofa large Glass full. It must be put into an Earthen Pan, with some Filets of a Hare and of Veal: Let these Filets be larded with Gammon and thick slips of Bacon, and steept in the Blood; seasoning them a little. To make the Godivoe*, you are to provide some Flesh of Chickens and Partridges, a good piece of a Leg of Veal, some Bacon, Marrow, and a little Sewet; with Parsly, Chibbol**, A Clove of Garlick and Truffles, all well season’d, enrich’d and chopt small: Let the Blood be put into this Farce and temper’d with it. In the mean time, let two sorts of Paste be prepar’d, viz. one ordinary, of a greater quantity, and the other less, consisting of Eggs, Butter, Flower and Salt, all well workt, without any Water. Thus two large pieces are to be roll’d out of the common Paste, and two lesser ones of the finer sort: Let the great piece for the Bottom-crust be put upon Paper, and the lesser on the top of it: Take one half of your Godivoe, and spread it neatly upon those two pieces of Paste; then let your Filets in order, and the rest of the Farce upon them; covering all with Bards or Slices of Bacon, and afterwards with a small piece of the fine Paste; wetting the greater round about: At last, the other large piece being put on the top, to compleat the Lid or uppe Crust; the whole Pie is to be wash’d over with an Egg, and baked in the Evening, for the space of eight or ten Hours: For it must be left all Night till the same Hour next morning, taking care that the Oven be not over-heated. It must be served up hot to Table, after having poured a Partridge-cullis*** into it, and both the Meat and Crust ought to be eaten with a Fork.
from this website:
http://theoldfoodie.blogspot.com/2007/04/blood-pie.html
221
Post by: Frazzled
Whats blood pudding? That sounds ichy also.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
You might also call it blood sausage?
We have it with a fried breakfast. Sausage, egg, rashers of bacon, tomato, bread (toasted or fried), maybe some mushrooms and some slices of black or white pudding. Delicious!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pudding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_pudding
Think I'll have some tomorrow actually!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Well they always said, never watch politics or sausage being made. Probably tastes excellent.
5164
Post by: Stelek
Oh and yes, I've read the Federalist papers.
Definitely not a republican or a democrat...
221
Post by: Frazzled
That sucks. I thought that sort of thing only happened in Chicago and LA.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
This is a good opportunity for a quote of the day.
"There are two great mysteries in the world, the German Constitution, and sausages." Von Bismarck, Chancellor of the German Empire.
Blood pudding, AKA Black pudding is a fat sausage made with pigs' blood, fat and rusk. Popular in the UK as a breakfast food, it can be eaten cooked or raw (being a previously cooked item.) In France there is a similar sausage called Boudin, which comes in blanc and noir varieties.
That recipe for Blood pie sounds pretty good!
7330
Post by: Aeddon
Kilkrazy wrote:This is a good opportunity for a quote of the day.
"There are two great mysteries in the world, the German Constitution, and sausages." Von Bismarck, Chancellor of the German Empire.
Blood pudding, AKA Black pudding is a fat sausage made with pigs' blood, fat and rusk. Popular in the UK as a breakfast food, it can be eaten cooked or raw (being a previously cooked item.) In France there is a similar sausage called Boudin, which comes in blanc and noir varieties.
That recipe for Blood pie sounds pretty good!
Wow...that sounds, um...great...
Back to the topic, it's interesting to hear how so much of the world seems to have an interest in American politics and legislation, truly amazing.
Chimera_Calvin wrote:Sorry, wasn't quite clear there. Total population of UK + France + Germany + Japan + Australia is approximately equal to the total population of the US.
In one year (I forget which it was) there were 32,000 gun-related deaths across the USA. The total number of gun related deaths in the same year in the other countries mentioned was about 300.
These figures were actually quoted in a 'West Wing' episode followed by the line "Do you think that Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or is it that those guys have gun control laws?". An old adage comes to mind about true words spoken in jest.
You’re taking statistics from a fictional TV show??? Hmm…no, I can’t even make fun of you…
Secondly, show me proof, any proof at all that the amount of gun crime is directly proportional to gun control laws.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Back to the topic, it's interesting to hear how so much of the world seems to have an interest in American politics and legislation, truly amazing.
Well, you're kind of a big deal...
Or our last hope, but there you go.
Meanwhile airports ? ... are your restaurants that dangerous then ? Or is it only really a risk in those "all you can eat" places ?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Aeddon wrote:
Back to the topic, it's interesting to hear how so much of the world seems to have an interest in American politics and legislation, truly amazing.
The USA is the world's largest economy, most powerful armed forces, biggest polluter, biggest driver of technology, heaviest weight in foreign and world affairs, controller of the World Bank and so on.
What you guys decide to do over there affects all the rest of us, even if we never visit you.
241
Post by: Ahtman
We have many leather-bound books and our country smells of rich mahogany.
|
|
