It very well may be.

I'm glad you agree Ahtman. One of the most vociferous, and commonplace arguments I hear for gun control use these people as examples of "how easy it is for people to get guns that will kill you!" when the situation just isn't what they characterize it as.

Frazzled wrote:
We have freedom of speech, press, assembly, due process. Do you have a guarantee of freedom of speech, press, assembly, due process, religion? Any of these? Whats to keep the government from taking those away from you with a new law?

All those are available by common law. A constitution does not actually of itself protect the citizen, the legislative debate protects the citizen, many nations have constitutions and violate them or shift the goalposts as to who they apply to. This is happening right now.

Frazzled wrote:
EDIT: I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but what protections do you have to keep a judge from changing his mind, or a new law being made. After all stare decisis only matters up to that court case, then everything can change.

Mind you, these amendments came about because the British government did not have them.

No offense taken.

Frazzled wrote:
We have freedom of speech, press, assembly, due process. Do you have a guarantee of freedom of speech, press, assembly, due process, religion? Any of these? Whats to keep the government from taking those away from you with a new law? .

Yup, as much as you do anyway:

Human Rights Act
The Human Rights Act 1998 gives legal effect in the UK to the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These rights not only affect matters of life and death like freedom from torture and killing but also affect your rights in everyday life: what you can say and do, your beliefs, your right to a fair trial and many other similar basic entitlements.

The rights are not absolute – governments have the power to limit or control them in times of severe need or emergency. You also have the responsibility to respect the rights of other people – and not exercise yours in a way which is likely to stop them from being able to exercise theirs.
Your human rights are:

the right to life
freedom from torture and degraded treatment
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life
freedom of thought, conscience and religion
freedom of expression
freedom of assembly and association
the right to marry or form a civil partnership and start a family
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to own property
the right to an education
the right to participate in free elections
If any of these rights and freedoms are abused you have a right to an effective solution in law, even if the abuse was by someone in authority, for example, a policeman.

We'll have to respectfully disagree reds8n, and that may be continental difference. I put no faith in something protected by law only, especially if derived from international treaty. We are the country that coined the phrase "trust but verify."

In the US the Constitution is used as a brake to prevent Congress/judges/President from overstepping their bounds. Sure it doesn't always work and the standards can slip, but on the whole its an effective method to stop the government from going to far. Fighting SCOTUS is usually (Washington DC and exception) a seriou no-no that usually loses over time.

I think it is largely continental difference. Western Europe has pretty effectively kept prosperity and peace for decades with our various systems. A lot of the Euros are well tooled up -- the French and Italians for birds, the Finns etc for reindeer, and the Swiss for whoever might want to invade them. It doesn't mean they want their weapons so they can overthrow their own government.

What do they French have? Thos gallic cigarettes are pretty strong. Those and week old french bread could probably stave off another German invasion indefinitely...

Plenty of shotguns and hunting rifles.

But when the French get seriously angry with their government, they just stage a huge strike.

The Germans are the French's biggest pals nowadays.

I thought the French rioted and burned cars. What do they have against cars? what did Peugot ever do to them?

I've always considered the Constitution as something that existed outside of the law; a series of ideals that any law passed must agree with. Not quite the same thing as a law, and while a law can simply be retracted by a legislature, the entire country(through our senators and HOR members) must reach a 2/3's(or was it 3/4's?) majority to change.

A law is traditionally subservient to the goverment, while a government must be subservient to the Constitution.

The Rule Of Law is that everyone including the government is subservient to the law. Thus the constitution is a law but it is also a set of ideals rather like the UN Declaration of Human Rights. IMO.

The Constitution, not to be confused with constitutions in general, is not 'a law', but from where all Laws emanate. It is not "above the law", it is what gives created laws their justification and limit. It is the groundwork for government and the rule of law, and where rule of law gains its authority. Now, it can be interpreted in different ways, such as loose and strict construction, which is where all the fun comes in.

Ahtman wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:The gun industry has their lobbyists too.

It is a little more complicated than that. Even if you took away the gun lobby it is not as if suddenly people would give up their firearms.

It should be pointed out that rights do not emanate from the Constitution but rather are protected. You are allowed to own a firearm not because the Constitution says you can, but rather because the Constitution says that the Government can not take that right away. Most of the Bill of Rights are a list of what the Government can not do, not what it can do. The right of free speech is inherent and the government is held at bay from trampling that by the First Amendment. There are of course limits as no limits at all would not be rule of law.

I wasn't expressing an opion there, just pointing out that it would be impossible at this point to get rid of guns in the U.S. However, like a lot ot artifacts of modern culture, the love of guns is believed to be an 'American thing'. It's the same with serial killers, who by the way rarely use guns. Most murders are commited by someone who was a relative, friend or co-worker of the victim who believed that the victim had it coming or sought revenge without thinking. Without guns, most of them would not be murders, just assaults. Us Americans are actually more orderly than the majority of Europe and Asia, where rioting is a national sport.

I don't like to call it a law; it isn't really the same to me. America is America because of it's Constition, not because of its laws.

I should make a quick note to point out that rights and laws are not the same thing which is why The Constitution does not grant rights, but does lay the foundation of the legal system. Laws emanate from the Constitution, rights do not, they are considered inherent. The First Amendment does not give a person the right to Freedom of Speech, it is inherent in the individual. What it does is protect that right.

This may be an unfair question... Would you argue that the right to bear arms is inherent in the individual?

I ask this because free speech is recognised to have proper limits, which are laid down in other laws such as Libel.

The 2nd amendment seems to indicate that the right to bear arms is inherent not in the individual but in collective action (the necessity of forming militias.)

The US law generally speaking grants the rights to bear arms without the necessity of joining a militia, I believe.

I think that it is an inherent right on an individual basis. Its a right that "scales up" with the level of society you are talking about. It recognizes that competent self-defense in the world requires arms, otherwise you are at the mercy of which ever oppressing force is after you, be it a grizzly bear, or a corrupt goverment out to stifle a religion.

So an individual has a right to personal defense, and in the case of a large, corrupt goverment on the attack, we have the right to form militias to defend ourselves. The "militia" clause is likely designed to prevent a goverment from outlawing lawful, organized resistance to policies or actions. Sort of an extension of the right to assembly.

warpcrafter wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:The gun industry has their lobbyists too.

It is a little more complicated than that. Even if you took away the gun lobby it is not as if suddenly people would give up their firearms.

It should be pointed out that rights do not emanate from the Constitution but rather are protected. You are allowed to own a firearm not because the Constitution says you can, but rather because the Constitution says that the Government can not take that right away. Most of the Bill of Rights are a list of what the Government can not do, not what it can do. The right of free speech is inherent and the government is held at bay from trampling that by the First Amendment. There are of course limits as no limits at all would not be rule of law.

I wasn't expressing an opion there, just pointing out that it would be impossible at this point to get rid of guns in the U.S. However, like a lot ot artifacts of modern culture, the love of guns is believed to be an 'American thing'. It's the same with serial killers, who by the way rarely use guns. Most murders are commited by someone who was a relative, friend or co-worker of the victim who believed that the victim had it coming or sought revenge without thinking. Without guns, most of them would not be murders, just assaults. Us Americans are actually more orderly than the majority of Europe and Asia, where rioting is a national sport.

Would you say that your orderliness is because you have so many guns?

Heinlein wrote that an armed society is a polite society.

I'd imagine that violent crime is commited when the offender feels secure and "in control". Take that control away with the knowledge that any one person around you, including your victim, is capable and willing to shoot and possibly kill an attacker, and an attack is discouraged.
Although I don't know how much that actually occurs in the United States. You certainly never see anyone walking around with a firearm that isn't concealed, and I'd guess that most people do not even have a concealed carry license. Even I don't. Interestingly enough, we have a large "non-lethal" weapon industry(tasers n such). Many people just aren't comfortable with a firearm, so while Heinlein expresses an entirely valid thought, it is not the only reason a society may be polite.

I don't know for sure if the Heinlein quote is applicable, but it does seem that the only ones who seem to think they have a stake in keeping their guns are those who as a hobby decide to go out in the woods and kill something, and those fundamentalist wackos who think that the end is near and will kill anyone who tries to stop them from being fundamentalist wackos no matter how many laws they've broken. I myself have no desire to own a gun, even though I live in a neighborhood where I occasionally hear gunshots in the distance. However, if a store clerk believes he needs one to defend himself against robbers, that's an unfortunate necessity. Maybe the way to reduce the danger of the guns would be to stop the robbers. That's a subject for a different thread.

This is an interesting discussion, and I'm going to make a few points before I go to bed.

1) The constitution is the law of the land. It does more than check the power of government, it actually is the source of power for government as well. If you look at articles 1,2 and 3, they actually spell out the powers of congress, the president and the courts. While some powers have expanded (congress can legislate nearly anything under the commerce clause now), if the constitution doesn't allow a branch to do something, it can't do it! The government creates laws that it hands down to the people, the constitution is seen as the laws written by the people and thus government is created. In Con Law, the constitution is the highest source of law for exactly that reason: it is seen as the will of the People.

2) The right to bear arms is inherent in the right to self defense, which is generally an accepted right, and is certainly one here in the US. There is actually some very interesting historical notes on the nature of "militia", as well, which tend to state that all able bodied men were considered members of the milita. To this day, that idea is kept as a last ditch plan for national defense. This militia can and should be "well regulated," but the idea that Americans can and should be armed to defend themselves, their rights, and the US isn't as archaic as many people think.

3) Finally, those that think that the arms in this country would do little against an occupying force have very little appreciation for modern history. No occupying force has ever outlasted a dedicated citizen resistance. Algeria, Viet Nam (twice), Afghanistan (against the soviets), and most likely Iraq are all nations with a dedicated, armed citizenry that have stymied powerful, western nations trying to control them. Remember that there are 300 million people in the US, while only 1 or 2 million military members. Most of those aren't ground forces, and even fewer are actual infantry. Remember that many, if not most, would desert in the case of a tyrannical regime. Suddenly you have a few hundred thousand trying to control hundreds of millions. Everybody in the US has a car and a gun. Yes, the tanks could do lots of damage, but no place is safe and everybody is a potential insurgent. No power, up to and including the US itself, could take and hold our territory and our people without doing massive damage to the population and infrastructure.

@Polonius - I think the problem with your first point is that is that the Constitution is not the will of the people. Rather, its an expression of what the framers believed the will of the people was at the end of the 18th century shortly after a violent insurrection against a percieved tyranny.

I know I'm not the first to quote the West Wing on this thread, but I'm thinking of a conversation between Toby Ziegler and his Rabbi, where the Rabbi states that in the days that the Torah was written:

'...a rebellious child could be taken to the city gates and stoned to death. It says that men could be polygamous and slavery was acceptable. For all I know, that thinking reflected the best wisdom of its time. But its just plain wrong by any modern standard...'

In a similar vein, its fair to argue that had the US constitution been written at a different point in history, then different values would have been expressed.

This is my main problem with those that say that bearing arms is an absolute right. I would say that there are only two absolute rights - Life and Freedom.
Even then we accept restrictions (in the vast majority of cases on our freedom, although in the cases of capital punishment, euthanasia, suicide and abortion on life as well) on these rights as the price of living in a society.

No society can exist without placing restrictions on the absolute free will of its citizens in order to avoid anarchy and chaos.

Yes, a very interesting discussion.

British law holds that self defence must be proportional -- in other words, if a guy comes at you with a cricket bat you do not have the right to use a gun on him. I can see that since the USA is filled with guns, the possession of guns by law abiding citizenry is merely proportional. Whether it actually works to reduce crime is another matter.


I would like to address Railguns's point.

>>I'd imagine that violent crime is commited when the offender feels secure and "in control". Take that control away with the knowledge that any one person around you, including your victim, is capable and willing to shoot and possibly kill an attacker, and an attack is discouraged.

This is an attractive "common sense" theory though it needs some evidence to support it.

I would advance the theory that violence is most often used by people who are insecure and lack control in their lives -- it is a means for establishing control and security.

This would explain why we see a lot more violent crime in poverty-stricken, insecure places such as Brazilian favelas, Somalia and council sink estates than in places like Oslo, prosperous suburbs and market towns.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:In a similar vein, its fair to argue that had the US constitution been written at a different point in history, then different values would have been expressed.

It has already been pointed out that there are different ways of interpreting the Constitution. Besaides if we cared about what the British thought of us we wouldn't have opened a big can of whoop-ass on them in Yorktown.

Thank you Leo McGarry....

Ahtman wrote:

Chimera_Calvin wrote:In a similar vein, its fair to argue that had the US constitution been written at a different point in history, then different values would have been expressed.

It has already been pointed out that there are different ways of interpreting the Constitution. Besaides if we cared about what the British thought of us we wouldn't have opened a big can of whoop-ass on them in Yorktown.

It's precisely because the Americans disliked the British idea of America as a tax farm that they opened a can of whoop-ass.

Ahtman wrote:

Chimera_Calvin wrote:In a similar vein, its fair to argue that had the US constitution been written at a different point in history, then different values would have been expressed.

It has already been pointed out that there are different ways of interpreting the Constitution. Besaides if we cared about what the British thought of us we wouldn't have opened a big can of whoop-ass on them in Yorktown.

And New Orleans! (big salute to my great great great, er whatever he was)

Chimera_Calvin wrote:@Polonius - I think the problem with your first point is that is that the Constitution is not the will of the people. Rather, its an expression of what the framers believed the will of the people was at the end of the 18th century shortly after a violent insurrection against a percieved tyranny.

I know I'm not the first to quote the West Wing on this thread, but I'm thinking of a conversation between Toby Ziegler and his Rabbi, where the Rabbi states that in the days that the Torah was written:

'...a rebellious child could be taken to the city gates and stoned to death. It says that men could be polygamous and slavery was acceptable. For all I know, that thinking reflected the best wisdom of its time. But its just plain wrong by any modern standard...'

In a similar vein, its fair to argue that had the US constitution been written at a different point in history, then different values would have been expressed.

This is my main problem with those that say that bearing arms is an absolute right. I would say that there are only two absolute rights - Life and Freedom.
Even then we accept restrictions (in the vast majority of cases on our freedom, although in the cases of capital punishment, euthanasia, suicide and abortion on life as well) on these rights as the price of living in a society.

No society can exist without placing restrictions on the absolute free will of its citizens in order to avoid anarchy and chaos.

There is a lot there, and some of it's good, and some if it I'm going to have to disagree with. That the constitution was written in a very different time is undeniable. In fact, most people don't realize this, but the rights guaranteed by the Constitution only protected people from Federal action, not state action, until the 20th century. They have since been nearly fully incorporated (under the 14th amendment, passed in the 1860's but not really used for that for decades), but in 1820 Maryland, for example, could have passed a law banning certain speech. Of course, most if not all State constitutions had Bills of Rights that generally went even farther than the Federal one....

We also need to figure what we mean when we say an absolute right. I think that's a more European concept, because in the US, there are Rights and there are Privileges, but no Absolute or Partial rights. In application, however, I think you see a pattern of cases that generally holds some rights to be far more difficult to impinge than others. For example: The United States, nor any state, could not ban use of the word F--k, as held in Brandenberg v. California. The idea was that no matter how offensive a word was, it cannot be removed from public discourse by government action. A line of cases going back forever has held that "Time and place" restrictions, meaning when and where one can speak (as a protest or whatever), are usually ok. Gun Control laws, as in requiring registration and/or restricting severely what weapons may be owned, have all been upheld. The recent Heller case, in DC, held that an absolute ban on handguns is too far. So, the law in the US basically says: there is a right to own weapons for personal defense, target shooting, and hunting, and while that right can be regulated, it cannot be completely denied."

To say that there is an absolute right for any person to own any firearm is ridiculous. We don't want the deeply insane owning machine guns. This is where we learn about the concept of Strict Scrutiny. In places where a law conflicts with the constitution in such a way that it's a restriction on personal rights, the court requires the government show three things: 1) a compelling state purpose, 2) that the law was narrowly tailored, and 3) that it no more restrictive than it need to be. Banning machine guns is pretty compelling: they're incredibly dangerous and destructive. The current law prohibits selling or buying those particular weapons, not all weapons in general, and the law doesn't even cover those already owned or certain exemptions. That's a fine law. The DC ban on handguns had a pretty wishy washy state purpose: to prevent gun deaths. DC lost, I'm assuming, because they couldn't show how banning handguns was more effective than regulating handguns through permits.

It's very cynical to say that the constitution no longer expresses the will of the people. I mean, the current way it's applied would be totally foreign to many of those that ratified it in the first place. I think if you polled most americans, they would say they have the right to own a gun, and thus it reflects the values of today.

If you really think it doesn't reflect contemperary America's values, what do you think would be added or deleted? I would like to see a general right of privacy and control over one's body added as a specific amendment, ending many of the silliness current law has to undergo.

I guess i'm also a little shocked at how few rights you feel a person has. Freedom is pretty ill defined, but what good is a right to life if one cannot protect it? What good is a right to freedom if cannot be protected, through the courts or at absolute worst through arms?

The one aspect of the constitution people do forget is that most people didn't think it would last. Foreign powers, internal dissension, the issue over slavery: the US could easily have ended up like France, with 5 republics over the last 200 years. Napoleon's rise in Europe following the revolutionary wars distracted the European powers, quite simply brilliant statesmanship kept the free and slave states playing nicely, the industrialization of the North coupled with mass immigration allowed the North to win the civil war when it was finally fought, and the emergence of nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th century led to a realization of a national identity, one that no longer viewed the constitution as a blue print laid down by the people, but as one that defined not only America, but Americans. I mean, all the time when you hear somebody tell another to shut up, you hear "I can say what I want, it's a free country." Americans, even if not aware of the text of their rights, now that they can speak, and read the news, and worship however they please, and own a gun, and enjoy legal protection in the courts. They know also that this isn't like a Social Security Check or a tax credit for tuition or being able to drive on nice highways, something that can be taken away as easily as it's given. These things are granted by the government, they are older and deeper than the government. I think that the constitution still speaks for the People.

If you go and read the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the same basic concepts are covered as in the US Constitution though in a somewhat more prolix style.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, a very interesting discussion.

British law holds that self defence must be proportional -- in other words, if a guy comes at you with a cricket bat you do not have the right to use a gun on him. I can see that since the USA is filled with guns, the possession of guns by law abiding citizenry is merely proportional. Whether it actually works to reduce crime is another matter.


I would like to address Railguns's point.

>>I'd imagine that violent crime is commited when the offender feels secure and "in control". Take that control away with the knowledge that any one person around you, including your victim, is capable and willing to shoot and possibly kill an attacker, and an attack is discouraged.

This is an attractive "common sense" theory though it needs some evidence to support it.

I would advance the theory that violence is most often used by people who are insecure and lack control in their lives -- it is a means for establishing control and security.This would explain why we see a lot more violent crime in poverty-stricken, insecure places such as Brazilian favelas, Somalia and council sink estates than in places like Oslo, prosperous suburbs and market towns.

Thats basically what I was getting at in other terms. How can I prove it? I can't, I'm not a psychologist. But I think from what I've observed in other people that it is a logical idea.

Respectfully, I agree but so what? Criminals like to establish control. Rapists are all about control. Its the chick with a gun that creates limits to that control.

The psychology is that by threatening the criminal's security by carrying a gun yourself, you increase his propensity to violence.

I haven't researched statistics on this as regards the USA and guns, however it is shown by UK statistics that people who carry knives for self defence are more likely to get into knife fights and be injured as a result.

My wife cannot stop a man who ways 210 intent to do her or the kids harm. With the 2nd Amendment she can.

You'll have to show me the overall murder/battery/rape rate in England is substantially lower than the US to support the statement. then you have to factor in the joy of open borders.

Frazzled wrote:My wife cannot stop a man who ways 210 intent to do her or the kids harm. With the 2nd Amendment she can.

True. But also the would be attacker is more likely to be armed/ready in the first place. And, due to derangement, more committed to the act.


...That said : I wouldn't want to threaten a Texan lady or her kids..just in case I wasn't more committed.

And, just in case, obviously I wish no harm to you and your good lady and brood. I think you wouldn't take it as such but i wouldn't want to cause a drama. ESPECIALLY ON THE INTERNET !

No stats to hand, and it's late and Friday night so I ain't digging frankly, but from what I recall the USA is a peculiarly violent one for your soci economic status.

I of course blame the parents.

No offense boyo except for the parents thing as I are one!

Remember all those times your parents embarrassed you? Yes, the meant it! TEE HEE!
Yes this photo of you as a baby can and will be used against you at any event, with any new friend, any new date, or anywhere, anytime muahahahaha

@Killkrazy: It's like I alluded to earlier. It's really not a good idea to pull a knife for anything other than a last resort. That's just simple street smarts. It can just create escalation and doesn't make you that dangerous in the first place. Someone without a knife can still fairly easily overpower you.

The thing is, a gun just makes you more dangerous. It doesn't prevent escalation and doesn't mean an attacker won't still attack you. A gun has a decent chance of deterring an unarmed attacker. But if they have a gun too, pulling yours basically just means you've put all your chips on *outshooting* your attacker. So the knife rule still applies. If an attacker displays a gun, your best bet is probably not to draw it for anything other than a last resort.

When you break it down like that, it's probably legitimate to question how often a gun is actually useful as a crime deterrent.

I think it is an issue where Americans and Europeans will never really understand each other's point of view.

Nonetheless it is an excellent debate and everyone has made cogent and sincere contributions.

I call for a round of mutual backslapping.

Frazzled wrote:No offense boyo except for the parents thing as I are one!

Remember all those times your parents embarrassed you? Yes, the meant it! TEE HEE!
Yes this photo of you as a baby can and will be used against you at any event, with any new friend, any new date, or anywhere, anytime muahahahaha

I'm as happy and easy-going as I am because over the last two decades I have hunted down and destroyed every photograph of me under the age of 18. Ah, the air would taste so sweet if it weren't for my Nurgliness...

Excellent move. Unfortunately for the boy we have lots of pictures of him at his long haired self absorbed best. Oh years of entertainment lie ahead!

Frazzled wrote:My wife cannot stop a man who ways 210 intent to do her or the kids harm. With the 2nd Amendment she can.

Actually she can if trained in Martial arts or some other form of self defense.

A gun won't necessarily save her unless she is trained in its use. A gun is a tool, without any training she would be relying on fear and/or luck. Many people have died because they bought into the myth of the gun.

But martial arts won't stop a gun. Criminals need control, violent crime gives control, and the easiest way to secure it is through the advantage of a gun. If you don't have one yourself, you are intentionally gimping yourself against someone with one.

Many people have gotten hurt or killed believing that martial arts will save them from firepower. History has dramatically proven this time and time again. I shouldn't have to point out where.

Rioting is a national sport in europe now?
Huh. We must be lagging behind. Ireland is very, very safe, and we have gun control.
That said, you can still get guns, but it's a bit harder than in the US, and most people aren't interested in them.
We do have the lovely phenomenon of syringe crime though, which shows that scumbags will find a way no matter what.

I hope this isn't taken as a cheap shot, it's certainly not intended that way, but in America in 2005, 154 children lost their lives due to unintentional firearms incidents. Is that acceptable?

Greebynog wrote:I hope this isn't taken as a cheap shot, it's certainly not intended that way, but in America in 2005, 154 children lost their lives due to unintentional firearms incidents. Is that acceptable?

To me yes it is, and this is just my opinion, because in the overall picture they were either terminated by the universe for some reason, or replaced by a larger amount of newborns shortly after their departure. I think it was Railguns that pointed out earlier that guns are tools. They (firearms) are (usually) not discharged by themselves. It is unfortunate that the parents of those children did not take the time and responsibility to properly teach their children about the proper use and handling of a firearm. That is the reality of the situation here. In addition, I have this opinion even though my cousin was one of those statistics about 4 years ago.

A certain level of accidents is inevitable, just as with cars.

I wonder how/if the number of automobiles in use in any given year
correlates to the number of sold or registered firearms in any given year.

Too lazy to do my own research, though.

While 154 children lost to firearms is bad, the fault would lie with the adult(s) in the area with the firearm. If you are trained in the use of firearms (wife was a cop and me a military type) you know how to effectively store your weapon and ammunition.

A trained individual "should" never have a loaded gun readily available when children are around. When you get your concealed to carry permit you get that training. I our case the SIG is stored in a lock box with a trigger guard on it. The .270 is in a locked case, the 12-gauge is in a locked case.

Also, in our family youngsters are taught gun safety at an early age. It helps to keep the "coolness" factor down and the urge to play with someting "forbidden". My oldest boy is 6 and he started hunting at the age of 4.

About the martial arts idea...I've got training and so does my wife and I can tell you that while it's nice to have some ability it's not going to completely "save" your butt in a fight. Close quarters combat is down and dirty and nothing is fancy about it at all. Most times if someone wants to get in your face they are going to throwdown but it's their buddy you have to watch out for. That rotten bastich might have a gun or a knife and be willing to use it when your not expecting it.

Here in Las Vegas there are plenty of folks who get shot but some punk who brings a gun to a martial arts/knife fight.

But The Warriors proves that the knife guy wins. Right?

Only if he's really lucky or the guy with the gun shoots it like all the "gangbanger" movies.

I prefer the "double-tap" protection option. But me I'm damn near a pacifist compared to the wife. Never ever mess with a South Texas girl with a gun.

She told me that when she was a cop that she could shoot-to-kill to protect herself (she's 5'2") if a suspect made a "threatening" move towards her. She personally added her caveat to that of "if he's at least 6'0"" If not then she was going to beat his ass with her ASP baton.

She's feisty!

This idea of protection comes up a lot in the gun debate.

One reason why Europeans don't hanker for guns like Americans, is that basically we feel safe in our society, on the streets, and in terms of being coerced by our governments.

I believe the crime and murder statistics show that the USA is a much more violent society than the UK. I can understand why Americans feel they need guns.

Ace_of_Spades wrote: she was going to beat his ass with her ASP baton.

She's feisty!

Raw-ow-r?

If guns are outlawed then the only people with guns will be people with criminal intent, and the people who had guns for self defence won't have them to protect themselves anymore.

That argument takes no notice of the fact that many countries (the UK, Japan, most Euro countries) have quite strict gun laws and do not have a big problem with gun crime. Criminals in these countries can get hold of guns and mainly use them to settle arguments between themselves. British police aren't even armed, except for special units.

Kilkrazy wrote:That argument takes no notice of the fact that many countries (the UK, Japan, most Euro countries) have quite strict gun laws and do not have a big problem with gun crime. Criminals in these countries can get hold of guns and mainly use them to settle arguments between themselves. British police aren't even armed, except for special units.

It also doesn't take note of the massive population differences or the massive cultural differences. Japan's suicide rate is enourmous when compared to the UK, US, and most Euro companies. Why can't they be more like the rest of us?

Railguns wrote:But martial arts won't stop a gun. Criminals need control, violent crime gives control, and the easiest way to secure it is through the advantage of a gun. If you don't have one yourself, you are intentionally gimping yourself against someone with one.

Many people have gotten hurt or killed believing that martial arts will save them from firepower. History has dramatically proven this time and time again. I shouldn't have to point out where.

Exactly. I took martial arts for ten years. Did all the velociraptor young punk stuff. Do I think I can take a 210 man at my age barehanded? Maybe if I know he's coming. Maybe not. With pistol my wife can. She's been trained to and knows whats at stake. Otherwise, she's defenseless. As the old saying goes, a Kentucky Rifle makes every man six feet tall.

God created man. Samuel Colt made them equal.

VermGho5t wrote:
To me yes it is, and this is just my opinion, because in the overall picture they were either terminated by the universe for some reason, or replaced by a larger amount of newborns shortly after their departure.

Bit like abortion then yes ?

Ah, this thread again. As a person who takes no issue with personal gun ownership I think I'll weigh in on this from a slightly different perspective.

It is fairly problematic to pin violent crime in the US on gun ownership. A gun is a tool. It facilitates the cause of of harm to another being. There is nothing intrinsically evil about the gun itself. Indeed, there are plenty of ways in which harm can be done to another person without the use of a gun. I'm sure that virtually everyone who is a member of this forum has, at least once, considered which everyday objects could be easily weaponized. If not, I recommend you do, it is quite illuminating. Once we realize that there are literally hundreds of ways to kill one another at our fingertips the question of gun use becomes one of motive, not possession. What motivates a person to use a gun?

I believe that, generally, there are two broad categories of gun related criminal actions: retributive and profit driven. Retributive crimes are ones of passion; the result of people driven to acts of violence as a result of perceived injury. Such crimes are virtually impossible to do away with. They are simply an extension of human nature. Profit driven crime, on the other hand, is something born of necessity; of the perception that legitimate means of change are beyond reasonable action. These crimes can be prevented, but not through gun control. Rather, social and structural reforms are the proper vehicle. Things like the disassociation of education from property taxes (or property tax pooling), enhanced public transit, and improved unemployment services.

In any case, I think that arms control is largely a dead issue in the US. There are simply too many privately held weapons, and too high a demand for the legitimate purchase of more, for any real political push to restrict ownership. Moreover, focussing on gun ownership as a cause of violence serves to ensconce real social issues in a nigh unto impenetrable maze of partisan rhetoric.

malfred wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote: she was going to beat his ass with her ASP baton.

She's feisty!

Raw-ow-r?

Sorry, what does this mean? Should I have said "butt" or "glutieus maximus".

About the level of violence in the UK and Japan...I'm from TX but I spent 8 years in the UK (4.5 living north of London) and 8 years in Japan (Mom's from Okinawa)...so let me weigh in on both. Growing up I didn't see a lot of violence in either country (but the Japanese have some ultra violent anime) unless you add "soccer violence" since I played in both countries. But when I got older and was stationed back in each country I saw my fair share of violence.

Sorry to say this to all the British Bros on board but I saw a ton more violence in the UK. For awhile we (mil types) were banned from most of the pubs/clubs around the base because of fights with locals. At the time there was a problem with "Yanks" getting jumped by local guys who were angry with them for talking/dancing/dating some of those beautiful British women. Unfortunately most Yanks don't go party by themselves. So the fights were never little affairs.

So you'd end up with Yanks and the girls we would meet and the pissed of local suitor and his mates throwing down. It got so bad that the nearest pubs/clubs we could go to where almost 15 miles away from base.

This was a regular occurance and we could never figure out why. We were under orders not to fight and most of us didn't go lookng for fights since we knew the book would be thrown at us. But week in and week out there was/were fights.

I guess my point is that it isn't guns/knives/slingshots/staplers (wicked cut once from a staple ) it's about mindset. You get yobs and douche bags in every society and if they are looking for violence they tend to be able to find it or manage to create it for themselves.

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:That argument takes no notice of the fact that many countries (the UK, Japan, most Euro countries) have quite strict gun laws and do not have a big problem with gun crime. Criminals in these countries can get hold of guns and mainly use them to settle arguments between themselves. British police aren't even armed, except for special units.

It also doesn't take note of the massive population differences or the massive cultural differences. Japan's suicide rate is enourmous when compared to the UK, US, and most Euro companies. Why can't they be more like the rest of us?

You are precisely right. What is it about US society that makes it so gun violent compared to many other societies that either have lots of guns (Switzerland, Canada) or don't (Japan, most of Europe.)

The suicide issue is completely irrelevant, unless perhaps you wish to theorise that committing suicide a lot helps prevent gun crime.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:

malfred wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote: she was going to beat his ass with her ASP baton.

She's feisty!

Raw-ow-r?

Sorry, what does this mean? Should I have said "butt" or "glutieus maximus".

About the level of violence in the UK and Japan...I'm from TX but I spent 8 years in the UK (4.5 living north of London) and 8 years in Japan (Mom's from Okinawa)...so let me weigh in on both. Growing up I didn't see a lot of violence in either country (but the Japanese have some ultra violent anime) unless you add "soccer violence" since I played in both countries. But when I got older and was stationed back in each country I saw my fair share of violence.

Sorry to say this to all the British Bros on board but I saw a ton more violence in the UK. For awhile we (mil types) were banned from most of the pubs/clubs around the base because of fights with locals. At the time there was a problem with "Yanks" getting jumped by local guys who were angry with them for talking/dancing/dating some of those beautiful British women. Unfortunately most Yanks don't go party by themselves. So the fights were never little affairs.

So you'd end up with Yanks and the girls we would meet and the pissed of local suitor and his mates throwing down. It got so bad that the nearest pubs/clubs we could go to where almost 15 miles away from base.

This was a regular occurance and we could never figure out why. We were under orders not to fight and most of us didn't go lookng for fights since we knew the book would be thrown at us. But week in and week out there was/were fights.

I guess my point is that it isn't guns/knives/slingshots/staplers (wicked cut once from a staple ) it's about mindset. You get yobs and douche bags in every society and if they are looking for violence they tend to be able to find it or manage to create it for themselves.

My point was about gun crime, not violence.

The UK has strict gun laws so only criminals can easily get hold of guns. You can buy a pistol or SMG for a few hundred pounds. Yet our rate of crime involving guns is much lower than the US. This contradicts the theory advanced by some posters that possession of guns by law abiding citizens deters gun crime.

You are quite right about the mindset and social issues. Violence manifests itself in different ways.

dogma wrote:Ah, this thread again. As a person who takes no issue with personal gun ownership I think I'll weigh in on this from a slightly different perspective.

It is fairly problematic to pin violent crime in the US on gun ownership. A gun is a tool. It facilitates the cause of of harm to another being. There is nothing intrinsically evil about the gun itself. Indeed, there are plenty of ways in which harm can be done to another person without the use of a gun. I'm sure that virtually everyone who is a member of this forum has, at least once, considered which everyday objects could be easily weaponized. If not, I recommend you do, it is quite illuminating. Once we realize that there are literally hundreds of ways to kill one another at our fingertips the question of gun use becomes one of motive, not possession. What motivates a person to use a gun?

I believe that, generally, there are two broad categories of gun related criminal actions: retributive and profit driven. Retributive crimes are ones of passion; the result of people driven to acts of violence as a result of perceived injury. Such crimes are virtually impossible to do away with. They are simply an extension of human nature. Profit driven crime, on the other hand, is something born of necessity; of the perception that legitimate means of change are beyond reasonable action. These crimes can be prevented, but not through gun control. Rather, social and structural reforms are the proper vehicle. Things like the disassociation of education from property taxes (or property tax pooling), enhanced public transit, and improved unemployment services.

In any case, I think that arms control is largely a dead issue in the US. There are simply too many privately held weapons, and too high a demand for the legitimate purchase of more, for any real political push to restrict ownership. Moreover, focussing on gun ownership as a cause of violence serves to ensconce real social issues in a nigh unto impenetrable maze of partisan rhetoric.

This is a very good post.

I totally agree.

I dislike the whole "a gun is a tool" argument. I was under the impression that a tool is used to create something. I can't think of anything that a gun can make. Guns are designed solely for the purpose of injuring or killing a target.

I know someone is going to say, "BUT KNIVES KILL PEOPLE TOO." Nowadays the knife has become a tool more than a weapon with the advent of the gun. Sure it can kill people, but the most common uses will be for cooking and the like. Anything can kill people, but that doesn't mean it was designed solely to kill or injure. Next you'll be telling me that jet bombers are tools, too.

CorporateLogo wrote:I dislike the whole "a gun is a tool" argument. I was under the impression that a tool is used to create something. I can't think of anything that a gun can make. Guns are designed solely for the purpose of injuring or killing a target.

Well, a gun can help you create your dinner.

A gun can help you feed your family, through hunting as well as the protection of your livestock and crops from the multitude of pests that are massively overpopulated in some areas.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:

malfred wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote: she was going to beat his ass with her ASP baton.

She's feisty!

Raw-ow-r?

Sorry, what does this mean? Should I have said "butt" or "glutieus maximus".

It was the obligatory RAWR + the pained OW.

CorporateLogo wrote:I dislike the whole "a gun is a tool" argument. I was under the impression that a tool is used to create something. I can't think of anything that a gun can make. Guns are designed solely for the purpose of injuring or killing a target.

I know someone is going to say, "BUT KNIVES KILL PEOPLE TOO." Nowadays the knife has become a tool more than a weapon with the advent of the gun. Sure it can kill people, but the most common uses will be for cooking and the like. Anything can kill people, but that doesn't mean it was designed solely to kill or injure. Next you'll be telling me that jet bombers are tools, too.

They are tools. Tools for the coercion of nations. Guns, at least in the domestic context, are tools for the coercion of people. Nothing exists for the explicit purpose of destruction. True, destruction follows from the use of some tools, but that destruction is ultimately designed to serve in the preservation of something else. You can keep people from using destructive tools by giving them access to more socially acceptable alternatives, like money. After all, the capitalist system really boils down to a means of channeling man's natural competitive impulses in a way which bypasses violence.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:

malfred wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote: she was going to beat his ass with her ASP baton.

She's feisty!

Raw-ow-r?

Sorry, what does this mean? Should I have said "butt" or "glutieus maximus".

About the level of violence in the UK and Japan...I'm from TX but I spent 8 years in the UK (4.5 living north of London) and 8 years in Japan (Mom's from Okinawa)...so let me weigh in on both. Growing up I didn't see a lot of violence in either country (but the Japanese have some ultra violent anime) unless you add "soccer violence" since I played in both countries. But when I got older and was stationed back in each country I saw my fair share of violence.

Sorry to say this to all the British Bros on board but I saw a ton more violence in the UK. For awhile we (mil types) were banned from most of the pubs/clubs around the base because of fights with locals. At the time there was a problem with "Yanks" getting jumped by local guys who were angry with them for talking/dancing/dating some of those beautiful British women. Unfortunately most Yanks don't go party by themselves. So the fights were never little affairs.

So you'd end up with Yanks and the girls we would meet and the pissed of local suitor and his mates throwing down. It got so bad that the nearest pubs/clubs we could go to where almost 15 miles away from base.

This was a regular occurance and we could never figure out why. We were under orders not to fight and most of us didn't go lookng for fights since we knew the book would be thrown at us. But week in and week out there was/were fights.

I guess my point is that it isn't guns/knives/slingshots/staplers (wicked cut once from a staple ) it's about mindset. You get yobs and douche bags in every society and if they are looking for violence they tend to be able to find it or manage to create it for themselves.

Brits love to scrap, but it's *very* rare for someone to die in a fistfight, less so in a shootout. Also, imagine if all those beery louts had guns...christ, I'd never go to the football, that's for sure!

Ace_of_Spades wrote: About the martial arts idea...I've got training and so does my wife and I can tell you that while it's nice to have some ability it's not going to completely "save" your butt in a fight. Close quarters combat is down and dirty and nothing is fancy about it at all. Most times if someone wants to get in your face they are going to throwdown but it's their buddy you have to watch out for. That rotten bastich might have a gun or a knife and be willing to use it when your not expecting it.

Here in Las Vegas there are plenty of folks who get shot but some punk who brings a gun to a martial arts/knife fight.

Frazzled wrote:

Railguns wrote:But martial arts won't stop a gun. Criminals need control, violent crime gives control, and the easiest way to secure it is through the advantage of a gun. If you don't have one yourself, you are intentionally gimping yourself against someone with one.

Many people have gotten hurt or killed believing that martial arts will save them from firepower. History has dramatically proven this time and time again. I shouldn't have to point out where.

Exactly. I took martial arts for ten years. Did all the velociraptor young punk stuff. Do I think I can take a 210 man at my age barehanded? Maybe if I know he's coming. Maybe not. With pistol my wife can. She's been trained to and knows whats at stake. Otherwise, she's defenseless. As the old saying goes, a Kentucky Rifle makes every man six feet tall.

The point I was making was about training, not about starting a pissing contest with gun fans. Part of Martial Arts is knowing when to fight and when to walk away. Fighting over pride will get you killed with or without a gun in the picture. Believing you are safe because you carry a gun will also get you killed. Safety is just as dangerous an illusion as the myth of the gun is.

Crimson Devil wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote: About the martial arts idea...I've got training and so does my wife and I can tell you that while it's nice to have some ability it's not going to completely "save" your butt in a fight. Close quarters combat is down and dirty and nothing is fancy about it at all. Most times if someone wants to get in your face they are going to throwdown but it's their buddy you have to watch out for. That rotten bastich might have a gun or a knife and be willing to use it when your not expecting it.

Here in Las Vegas there are plenty of folks who get shot but some punk who brings a gun to a martial arts/knife fight.

Frazzled wrote:

Railguns wrote:But martial arts won't stop a gun. Criminals need control, violent crime gives control, and the easiest way to secure it is through the advantage of a gun. If you don't have one yourself, you are intentionally gimping yourself against someone with one.

Many people have gotten hurt or killed believing that martial arts will save them from firepower. History has dramatically proven this time and time again. I shouldn't have to point out where.

Exactly. I took martial arts for ten years. Did all the velociraptor young punk stuff. Do I think I can take a 210 man at my age barehanded? Maybe if I know he's coming. Maybe not. With pistol my wife can. She's been trained to and knows whats at stake. Otherwise, she's defenseless. As the old saying goes, a Kentucky Rifle makes every man six feet tall.

The point I was making was about training, not about starting a pissing contest with gun fans. Part of Martial Arts is knowing when to fight and when to walk away. Fighting over pride will get you killed with or without a gun in the picture. Believing you are safe because you carry a gun will also get you killed. Safety is just as dangerous an illusion as the myth of the gun is.

Respectfully, I'd bet good money you're a man who's never been in a bad neighborhood, or worked in one late at night. This has nothing to do with a "who has the biggest cojones" fight. This has to do with preventeing assault, rape, potentially murder. This advice is irrelvant if a nutjob is trying to kill you, or someone is trying to rape you.

To paraphrase the immortal words of Gurney Halleck "Mood? Mood is for cows and love play. Thats not fighting. you have to be ready to fight at any time."

It also has to do with a reasonable appreciation of how likely any of those things is, and avoiding neighborhoods where your risk of them is elevated.

It isn't so much that the safety factor of gun ownership is artificially elevated (though to a certain extent I believe that it is), but that the danger of being raped, murdered, or assaulted is largely negligible. Especially when one considers the ancillary social problems that go with mass gun ownership; like weapon theft, accidental injury, disposition to crimes of passion.

Do many Americans carry concealed firearms for everyday protection?

Chimera_Calvin wrote:

It could be argued therefore that the second ammendments provision for armed citizens is now redundant because there is no 'well regulated militia' for them to serve.

Actually, I've been given to understand the various forms of National Guard are a hybrid. Part state Militia, part Reserve force. From what I remember/understood they're nominally under the command of the Governor of their respective state, unless called to active duty by the President- which is why the Governor can call them out during riots, or other emergent situations- i.e. Floods.

If this is the case, and the National Guard web site supports it, then there is no reason for private citizens to bear arms since they can join the Guard in order to do so.

And that is the crux of the 2nd Amendment arguement. Is it an amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms, or providing for a well armed militia? Personally I think we have the least of three evils here, and any fix would just break it worse.

I don't think it can be fixed. The USA is swimming in weapons -- apparently over 200 million in private hands,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art29.shtml

I don't see how that many weapons can be gathered in without the full support of the great majority of the population, which clearly does not exist.

Kilkrazy wrote:If this is the case, and the National Guard web site supports it, then there is no reason for private citizens to bear arms since they can join the Guard in order to do so.

The Governor is in charge as long as the Commander in Chief of the military calls and says "hey, guess who I want to go do whatever?" and that is pretty much all it takes to nationalize them. A militia would need to be more autonomous then that. You also don't get to take your weapons home from the National Guard so it wouldn't be very hard to just take them all away, like at Concord.

So if a state wishes to rebel against the Federal government, their National Guard forces would desert and fight on the Federal side.

Or would they decide to fight for the state government.

Kilkrazy wrote:So if a state wishes to rebel against the Federal government, their National Guard forces would desert and fight on the Federal side.

Or would they decide to fight for the state government.

It would really depend on the individuals. If a state truly rebelled, it would probably be because of mass popular support for the state and little to no respect for the federal government. In that case, I'd imagine most Guardsmen would stay home.

Legally, they would follow the president's orders, but in a rebellion people might start breaking federal law....

That's pretty much what I thought. If a new civil war arose, the Guard forces would behave as the state militias did in the ACW.

It would seem that the legal status of the National Guard as a quasi-Federal force, compared a State militia, is not essential to consideration of the need to be able to rebel against the Federal government.

Do US citizens feel a need to arm themselves against their state governments? I have read that the constitution of Massachusetts guarantees citizens the right to overthrow the state government by force.

Frazzled wrote:

Crimson Devil wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote: About the martial arts idea...I've got training and so does my wife and I can tell you that while it's nice to have some ability it's not going to completely "save" your butt in a fight. Close quarters combat is down and dirty and nothing is fancy about it at all. Most times if someone wants to get in your face they are going to throwdown but it's their buddy you have to watch out for. That rotten bastich might have a gun or a knife and be willing to use it when your not expecting it.

Here in Las Vegas there are plenty of folks who get shot but some punk who brings a gun to a martial arts/knife fight.

Frazzled wrote:

Railguns wrote:But martial arts won't stop a gun. Criminals need control, violent crime gives control, and the easiest way to secure it is through the advantage of a gun. If you don't have one yourself, you are intentionally gimping yourself against someone with one.

Many people have gotten hurt or killed believing that martial arts will save them from firepower. History has dramatically proven this time and time again. I shouldn't have to point out where.

Exactly. I took martial arts for ten years. Did all the velociraptor young punk stuff. Do I think I can take a 210 man at my age barehanded? Maybe if I know he's coming. Maybe not. With pistol my wife can. She's been trained to and knows whats at stake. Otherwise, she's defenseless. As the old saying goes, a Kentucky Rifle makes every man six feet tall.

The point I was making was about training, not about starting a pissing contest with gun fans. Part of Martial Arts is knowing when to fight and when to walk away. Fighting over pride will get you killed with or without a gun in the picture. Believing you are safe because you carry a gun will also get you killed. Safety is just as dangerous an illusion as the myth of the gun is.

Respectfully, I'd bet good money you're a man who's never been in a bad neighborhood, or worked in one late at night. This has nothing to do with a "who has the biggest cojones" fight. This has to do with preventeing assault, rape, potentially murder. This advice is irrelvant if a nutjob is trying to kill you, or someone is trying to rape you.

To paraphrase the immortal words of Gurney Halleck "Mood? Mood is for cows and love play. Thats not fighting. you have to be ready to fight at any time."

I've had guns pointed at me because someone thought it was funny, I've been threaten by someone with a gun, and I've lived and worked the graveyard shift in a not nice neighborhood.

Having lived in Texas and now in Utah, I've known a lot of gun owners. And out of all of them, Art would be the only one I would place money on using his gun to stop an assault, rape, or potential murder. Keeping a cool head and having the guts to kill someone is actually rather rare. I've seen a lot of gun stroking bravado in my time and very little responsibility. If proficiency with a gun was as common as gun ownership, I might buy into your argument.

I once had a really old guy order me out of his liquor store with a shotgun because he didn't like my long hair. His loss, I was about to spend $100 in his crappy establishment.
Actually, the only state that would have a chance to successfully rebel is Texas, and then only if the rebellion had the support of Fort Hood, the largest military base on Earth. That would be a truly nasty situation.Not that it's likely to happen, at least one would hope. Another civil war is the last thing we need right now.

Man, there's a veritable cornucopia of threads in here to choose from. It's almost like a forum within a forum. Has anyone every named this phenomenon of thread fracture, moving OT?

Killkrazy: Gun ownership in the US. Part of the culture for quite a number of us. Not all, but a large number. Concealed? Yeah, there are quite a lot of people who carry. I don't own a regitered firearm, haven't been to a range in a long time, cold not be considered a firearm afficianado or "enthusiast" by much of anyone on earth. It's not like I hang with the NRA, or paramilitary, or militias or anything. And still I know a large number of people who carry concealed firearms. I know that county orders more forms for Application To Carry a Concealed Firearm than any other application, period. Those things are parking-ticket common. They carry nice firearms, they carry crap firearms; they carry good ones and some idiots carry crap I'd never bother shooting b/c the metal is so bad they couldn't do anything but blow your own face off. But they pack heat.

Do US citizens feel the need to arm themselves against the government? Quite a few do. Many of us feel an immense distrust of/disconnect with the federal government. Can we be blamed? As diverse a nation as we are, it's inevitable. And no, I'm not raging on my government there so much as I am refering to the statistics and demographics of Mark Twains' take on democracy.
Retaining the right to bear arms is a subtle thing, in some ways. It gives some citizens the impression that if their fedgov screws up enough that the armed citizenry can do something about it. It also gives some in fedgov pause. Would the citizenry, as a whole, ever take up arms against the fedgov? In my not so friggin humble opinion, it would take a massive amount of motivation, motivation that is not there right now, or even close to it. However, one small part of the beauty of the right to bear arms is that the possibility is there. Remote to be sure, but there. A very real check-and-balance, even if it stands about as much chance of being used as I have of being the first man on the moon without benefit of a space suit.

Some of our people misuse firearms. We have accidents with them. Our children find poorly stored fireamrs and shoot themselves and their friends. Schoolyards and post offices become shooting galleries. I cannot express how gak ty I feel that is, how horrible and bad. But you musn't forget that these things sell papers and advertisements, which is why we hear about them and yet never hear about the times that Joe Average gets it right. About the families and groups and individuals andpeople of every description who safely handle firearms. There is blood and death and destruction. There is also responsibility and sober care.

Worth the price? I am embarrassed to say that, judging by our laws, I guess so, because we can still carry them legally. How do I personally feel about whether or not it is worht the price? I feel it is a chice of evils. I feel on the one hand that any childs life is immeasurably prescious. I also know for a fact that so many despots don't care about anyone. They grind children along with the rest.

I feel that life is about death, in the end. I feel that, in a world of SUV's and Crackberries and Chicken McNuggets and Incredibly Expensive Plastic Toy Soldiers, it is easy to lose track of the jungle. But the jungle is always there. Ask the Ossetians. Right, wrong, whatever; I bet they have been reminded very painfully that the jungle is there. Would they have been invaded by Russia if they had had firearms, every man woman and child? Probably, but I bet it would have takem much more motivation on the part of ol Vlad. Wouldn't have changed the outcome much, except to get more people killed. But to be killed defending my home against a foriegn invader? My house, my family? Good enough, if my kids get away.

I don't own a registered firearm. Haven't fired one in years. However, to paraphrase, you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers. Come and get it, if you want it. Not literal invitations or challenges or epeen, just an expression of a mindset.

Crimson Devil: You mentioned the myth of the gun. I have a fair idea that I know what you are refering to, but I have never heard that phrase before. Could you elaborate for me please? I'd love to hear about it. Seriously, no eRichard here.

Dogma: One point of yours jumps out at me as being somehting that I am sad to say I thoroughly disagree with. Gun control largely being a dead issue in the US? I friggin wish. I think that there are Brady Bills yet to come, my friend, and furhter restrictions than those are being planned, I would bet. Will they ever "get all the firearms?" Not in my lifetime, m'fren. But they will try. Oh yes, some poor grieving widow, or orphan, will try. And in their grief, it is hard to blame them.

grizgrin wrote:Man, there's a veritable cornucopia of threads in here to choose from. It's almost like a forum within a forum. Has anyone every named this phenomenon of thread fracture, moving OT?

Killkrazy: Gun ownership in the US. Part of the culture for quite a number of us. Not all, but a large number. Concealed? Yeah, there are quite a lot of people who carry. I don't own a regitered firearm, haven't been to a range in a long time, cold not be considered a firearm afficianado or "enthusiast" by much of anyone on earth. It's not like I hang with the NRA, or paramilitary, or militias or anything. And still I know a large number of people who carry concealed firearms. I know that county orders more forms for Application To Carry a Concealed Firearm than any other application, period. Those things are parking-ticket common. They carry nice firearms, they carry crap firearms; they carry good ones and some idiots carry crap I'd never bother shooting b/c the metal is so bad they couldn't do anything but blow your own face off. But they pack heat.

Do US citizens feel the need to arm themselves against the government? Quite a few do. Many of us feel an immense distrust of/disconnect with the federal government. Can we be blamed? As diverse a nation as we are, it's inevitable. And no, I'm not raging on my government there so much as I am refering to the statistics and demographics of Mark Twains' take on democracy.
Retaining the right to bear arms is a subtle thing, in some ways. It gives some citizens the impression that if their fedgov screws up enough that the armed citizenry can do something about it. It also gives some in fedgov pause. Would the citizenry, as a whole, ever take up arms against the fedgov? In my not so friggin humble opinion, it would take a massive amount of motivation, motivation that is not there right now, or even close to it. However, one small part of the beauty of the right to bear arms is that the possibility is there. Remote to be sure, but there. A very real check-and-balance, even if it stands about as much chance of being used as I have of being the first man on the moon without benefit of a space suit.

Some of our people misuse firearms. We have accidents with them. Our children find poorly stored fireamrs and shoot themselves and their friends. Schoolyards and post offices become shooting galleries. I cannot express how gak ty I feel that is, how horrible and bad. But you musn't forget that these things sell papers and advertisements, which is why we hear about them and yet never hear about the times that Joe Average gets it right. About the families and groups and individuals andpeople of every description who safely handle firearms. There is blood and death and destruction. There is also responsibility and sober care.

Worth the price? I am embarrassed to say that, judging by our laws, I guess so, because we can still carry them legally. How do I personally feel about whether or not it is worht the price? I feel it is a chice of evils. I feel on the one hand that any childs life is immeasurably prescious. I also know for a fact that so many despots don't care about anyone. They grind children along with the rest.

I feel that life is about death, in the end. I feel that, in a world of SUV's and Crackberries and Chicken McNuggets and Incredibly Expensive Plastic Toy Soldiers, it is easy to lose track of the jungle. But the jungle is always there. Ask the Ossetians. Right, wrong, whatever; I bet they have been reminded very painfully that the jungle is there. Would they have been invaded by Russia if they had had firearms, every man woman and child? Probably, but I bet it would have takem much more motivation on the part of ol Vlad. Wouldn't have changed the outcome much, except to get more people killed. But to be killed defending my home against a foriegn invader? My house, my family? Good enough, if my kids get away.

I don't own a registered firearm. Haven't fired one in years. However, to paraphrase, you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers. Come and get it, if you want it. Not literal invitations or challenges or epeen, just an expression of a mindset.

Beautiful post.

There is so many things that can be said to support our 2nd Amendment. So many reasons why that it is there, and why it is still applicable today. Lets take Britain case in point. For so long your society has been without firearms. There really is no means to resist violently against the government if for some reason (not saying there is any), that you need to. You can't say that the need may never arise. 30 years before the American Revolution, do you think the majority of American colonists thought they'd be fighting a war with their sovereign government?

I see the 1st and the 2nd Amendments as going hand in hand with each other. The first is there to gaurantee the population of the US the means and rights to peacebly speak out against the Government. In the event that it fails, or is taken away, the 2nd is there to back it up. Further more, I've lately been finding myself backing the idea that the Government (state or federal) has no legal right to restrict our ownership of firearms in any manner, be it a .22 handgun, or a Mini-Gun. When the Constitution was written, the war against the British government was still fresh in their minds. They fought a superior army, with superior equipment. They intended to ensure that in the event the American people ever did need to take up arms against their government again, that they would have the means to do so. We can't be expected to take out an M1-A2 with a 30.06.

Granted, America is not what it once was 250 years ago. The population has exploded to what was probably undreamed of numbers. Weapons technology today is, again, beyond the wildest dreams of what they had in the 18th century. Given the number of crazies that we have out there, we really shouldn't be able to make it so anyone can go out to buy RPG's or TOW missiles. But when it comes to matters of gun control, the government really should have no rights to dirty their hands into it, and personally I'll fight against anyone who intends to do so.

Breton wrote

And that is the crux of the 2nd Amendment arguement. Is it an amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms, or providing for a well armed militia? Personally I think we have the least of three evils here, and any fix would just break it worse.

This is the problem with the second ammendment, as I stated in my initial argument. The amendment is a single sentence which covers both aspects.

The framers wanted people to have the power to defend themselves, their country and their beliefs and so they allowed the people to bear arms. My argument, however, is that they also recognised the danger inherent in allowing people access to deadly weapons without any form of control - hence the key inclusion of the word 'regulated'.

I think the issue is that any attempts at regulation are deemed in some quarters as an attempt to overturn the entire amendment.

National Guard are to large and paid by the Fed to be an analogue of Militias in any way. They weren't based on States, it would be more proper for each town/city to have a militia, and each person would be responsible for themselves, seeing it as civic duty. As stated in an earlier post you were in the militia as long as you considered an able bodied man.

If you really don't understand it, then you really don't understand US history and culture nearly as well as you think you do. It's a fundamental part of our psyche and has been for a very, very long time.

Chimera Calvin: Of course some see any minute spec of regulation as an attempt by the government to lock down the proles. If it weren't for people "like that", we wouldn't have extremists of any cloth in this world. Extremists are just people who take it beyond the third standard dev. They are outliers. But, in a free-thinking, free-speaking society, you will hear from them as well as everyone else motivated enough to open their mouths (hopefully having engaged their brains first). Regulation is the opposite of freedom, if you take both in an absolute sense. Freedom is doing as you see fit. Regulation is having someone else set our limits. Life in these United States is somewhere in the middle. No I am not advocating anarchy. No, I am not advocating a crushing central govt. I am saying that life is in the middle of the two, for most countries. The middle is a big place.

grizgrin wrote:I feel that life is about death, in the end. I feel that, in a world of SUV's and Crackberries and Chicken McNuggets and Incredibly Expensive Plastic Toy Soldiers, it is easy to lose track of the jungle. But the jungle is always there. Ask the Ossetians. Right, wrong, whatever; I bet they have been reminded very painfully that the jungle is there. Would they have been invaded by Russia if they had had firearms, every man woman and child? Probably, but I bet it would have takem much more motivation on the part of ol Vlad. Wouldn't have changed the outcome much, except to get more people killed. But to be killed defending my home against a foriegn invader? My house, my family? Good enough, if my kids get away.

OT side track:

FYI, the South Ossetians fought the Georgians to make sure that they wouldn’t get cut off from the Russians.

Most of the people who live in South Ossetia consider themselves Russian and quite a lot of them hold Russian passports. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia (their own province), their attack was focused at two points- crushing the capital, and cutting off the single route for Russia to get in and stop them. The South Ossetians put a skeleton distraction/holding n force in their capital, and concentrated the majority of their local forces to stopping the Georgian forces’ attempt to cut them off from Russia. They were successful, and thus Russia was able to come to their aid by invading.

Is it okay for Russia to invade a neighboring country? No.
Is the situation as simple as just being Russian hegemonic aggression? Again, the answer is no.

I think you are right.

It's hard to find statistics to back up the rational arguments in favour of guns. For example, all the concealed weapons seem to have no beneficial effect on the murder, rape and assault crime statistics.

The American desire to own guns seems to be an instinctive or emotional response, something inherent in their culture.

I don't think gun control can be done, anyway. There are too many guns and not enough desire to do away with them.

grizgrin wrote:

Dogma: One point of yours jumps out at me as being somehting that I am sad to say I thoroughly disagree with. Gun control largely being a dead issue in the US? I friggin wish. I think that there are Brady Bills yet to come, my friend, and furhter restrictions than those are being planned, I would bet. Will they ever "get all the firearms?" Not in my lifetime, m'fren. But they will try. Oh yes, some poor grieving widow, or orphan, will try. And in their grief, it is hard to blame them.

Yes, there's a reason guns and supporting material are flying right now. There is great concern that there will be attenmpts to impose Chicago or Washington DC style gun laws on the nation, or mayhaps lesser but more stupid California legal definitions.

That reminds me i need to go vote. Bull Moose 2008!

Kilkrazy wrote:
I can't think of any or understand any rational arguments in favour of guns so I'll just assume that my point of view is right even though I obliviously have trouble understanding the fundamental cultural differences.

Fixed it for you. Hell, pretty much all your posts in this thread I just fixed.

What is wrong with my point of view, Ahtman?

I understand from previous posts by US citizens that many Americans support guns because they protect them from crime -- murder, rape and assault in particular been put forward as examples where guns are essential protection.

This is a highly rational argument, and I absolutely agree that guns should be carried if they protect people, so I did some research to find out if it true.

Here are crime stats from the CIA World Factbook, via the www.nationmaster.com website.

Rapes per 100,000 population
Canada = 73
USA = 30
UK = 14

Murders
USA = 4.3
Canada = 1.5
UK = 1.4

Assaults
USA = 757
UK = 746
Canada = 712

I don't see any evidence here to support the idea that carrying guns is protective. The US has double the rape rate and four times the murder rate of the UK. Assaults run at the same level.

Now, I assume that Americans are not fundamentally stupid, so they are obviously aware of these stats and have decided to disregard them for some other reason. It seems to me that Americans choose to retain guns because of other factors which are must be culturally based.

The fact that I don't understand these cultural factors does not disqualify me from recognising that they exist.

You're putting effect to cause. Assuming those facts as correct (and only assuming for purposes of this discussion), then that represents the greater need to be able to defend yourself.

Plus you stats don't reflect the number of door to door salesmen/solicitors that have been warned off with the use of firearms. That alone shows how much more advanced the US is.

Frazzled wrote:You're putting effect to cause. Assuming those facts as correct (and only assuming for purposes of this discussion), then that represents the greater need to be able to defend yourself.

Plus you stats don't reflect the number of door to door salesmen/solicitors that have been warned off with the use of firearms. That alone shows how much more advanced the US is.

That's the "things would be worse otherwise" argument. Which may be true, however how can one get evidence to support?

In the UK you can get an illegal gun for about £50 to £200, and we have hardly any legal guns. But our violent crime rate is much lower than the US (except for assaults.)

You're misperceiving. I'm saying because the crime rate is higher, people need firearms for protection. Assuming those stats are accurate. Interesting to add in the assault stats.

Yes, but why is the crime rate higher?

As far as I know the stats are accurate.

I would like to find historical data on the growth (or reduction) in crimes and ownership of guns in different countries. That would test the other side of the theory. Of course it could still be argued there that causality went one way or the other.

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I can't think of any or understand any rational arguments in favour of guns so I'll just assume that my point of view is right even though I obliviously have trouble understanding the fundamental cultural differences.

Fixed it for you. Hell, pretty much all your posts in this thread I just fixed.

Aren't you the cute little troll? Offer something constructive or don't speak at all. Your post is reprehensible garbage. To forestall an opinion is not to hold intellectual high ground. And to systematically criticize (in a destructive fashion) is not to withhold the formulation of an opinion. You are worse than Lou Dobbs; at least he pursues ratings.

Kilkrazy wrote:What is wrong with my point of view, Ahtman?

I understand from previous posts by US citizens that many Americans support guns because they protect them from crime -- murder, rape and assault in particular been put forward as examples where guns are essential protection.

This is a highly rational argument, and I absolutely agree that guns should be carried if they protect people, so I did some research to find out if it true.

Here are crime stats from the CIA World Factbook, via the www.nationmaster.com website.

Rapes per 100,000 population
Canada = 73
USA = 30
UK = 14

Murders
USA = 4.3
Canada = 1.5
UK = 1.4

Assaults
USA = 757
UK = 746
Canada = 712

I don't see any evidence here to support the idea that carrying guns is protective. The US has double the rape rate and four times the murder rate of the UK. Assaults run at the same level.

Now, I assume that Americans are not fundamentally stupid, so they are obviously aware of these stats and have decided to disregard them for some other reason. It seems to me that Americans choose to retain guns because of other factors which are must be culturally based.

The fact that I don't understand these cultural factors does not disqualify me from recognising that they exist.

Correlation does not imply causation. Wealth disparity, availability of weapons, population dispersion, desensitivity to violence, legal definition of rape/assault from country to country, etc. I honestly don't know if weapons make us more prone to violence or not.

er, what he said.

Weapons do not make us more prone to violence. They also do not serve as any kind of deterrent. What they do is enable the culture of extreme self-determination which profligates the US. After all, if literally no one is going to help you the only option you have is to make them do so. By force.

The attraction to firearms is just one more emblem of the American fetish for the 'pioneer spirit'. Others include a systematic fear of government, a unique attachment to privacy, and rampant populism.

Don't forget belief in 'can-do,' and the feeling that we can do it ourselves, we don't need government/church/mob/insert organization here to do something.

Even if the belief in the non-necessity of organizations leads us to create...organizations.

One reason for the high murder rate in the US is the prevelance of gangland murders, which arise at least partially because of the extreme racial and economic segregation in the US coupled with a much lower social safety net as compared to Europe.

No man is an island.

My impression is that the USA is full of organisations got up by citizens -- churches, Parent-Teacher Associations, the Shriners, the NRA, political parties, tailgate parties, fraternities, trade associations, the Better Business Bureau, and so on.

The free association of Man is also one of those American fetishes.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I can't think of any or understand any rational arguments in favour of guns so I'll just assume that my point of view is right even though I obliviously have trouble understanding the fundamental cultural differences.

Fixed it for you. Hell, pretty much all your posts in this thread I just fixed.

Aren't you the cute little troll? Offer something constructive or don't speak at all. Your post is reprehensible garbage. To forestall an opinion is not to hold intellectual high ground. And to systematically criticize (in a destructive fashion) is not to withhold the formulation of an opinion. You are worse than Lou Dobbs; at least he pursues ratings.

We would rather form those organizations ourselves, when where we want and/or need them, rather than let a government, which may or may not have our bests interests in mind, mandate our tax dollars to the creation of an organization which may even act against our wishes.


Although our incipient distrust of government may actually contribute to corruption in a form of self-fulfilling prophecy, as we usually would deride the evils of government than try to cultivate a culture of respected , responsible, philanthropic government. But that too has unfortunate side effects when taken to the extreme(I.E. Communism)

grizgrin wrote:Crimson Devil: You mentioned the myth of the gun. I have a fair idea that I know what you are refering to, but I have never heard that phrase before. Could you elaborate for me please? I'd love to hear about it. Seriously, no eRichard here.

The Myth of the Gun is simply attributing good/evil/power to a gun it does not actually have. A gun is a tool, it is a reflection of the will to use it. Guns are dangerous, but so is a hammer in the right hands. Americans have fetishized guns to the point they can't see them for what they are anymore; tools.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. Yeah, we like guns, but (non-redneck hicktard) gun owners are among the first to call guns tools, usually in the face of pro gun-control arguments.

I think you may have just had some terrible luck as far as meeting 'tarded gun owners. Some people never develop a healthy respect for the weapons and treat them like toys. I'm all for mandating firearm safety courses and hunter education.

I would agree with you in one respect, certainly, Crimson devil. A firearm is an inanimate object. It has no will of it's own. However, the major difference between a firearm and a hammer is that the hammer has constructive use. If it is actually being used, does a firearm construct anything? It may help to create ideas in someones head. That's about the only thing I can think of.

Dogma, I would find flaw in your post. You state that a firearm is not a deterrent. I can't see how this could be. Please explain. But that is mystery, not flaw. the flaw is in your logic, at least as I understand it. You state that if no one else will help you, you can use a fire arm to make them help you. Aren't you then deterring them from following thier will, and frcing them to follow your own will? Please explain.

Fire arms are tools in the same sense that the bow and arrow are tools. Used as hunting implements. Is it necessary, in the modern age of Mcdonalds and grocery stores? Not in all but the most remote places. But hunting is still a time honored tradition in many places, and some people even prefer to live out in the wilderness.

Back home some of my family aren't all that well off at times (extended family and all) so hunting is a way to help out. Luckily we can hunt year round. So I see the gun/firearm as a tool.

In the military we look at guns as a tool...a means to an end so to speak...we get trained to use guns to kill...period. It's not anything else but that. A tool.

Guns don't kill people indescriminantly stupid people kill people indescriminantly. A gun is a detterent to violence but shouldn't be used as the only means for deterrance. People should use their brains before they engage the trigger.

Sorry if this is OT but all this discussing tools reminds me of one of my fav movies and how it showed humans reliance on tools from the most simple...to the most complex (to our tools ultimately realizing they don't need us anymore);

grizgrin wrote:
Dogma, I would find flaw in your post. You state that a firearm is not a deterrent. I can't see how this could be. Please explain. But that is mystery, not flaw. the flaw is in your logic, at least as I understand it. You state that if no one else will help you, you can use a fire arm to make them help you. Aren't you then deterring them from following thier will, and frcing them to follow your own will? Please explain.

Ah, I see what you mean. I meant the concept of deterrence as one of passive significance.

If guns are deterrents in that sense we would expect that Somalia to be the safest nation on the planet. Clearly this is not the case. Rather, places like Somalia are incredibly dangerous because there are no real social repercussions to the use of firearms. Indeed, there are actually many social incentives to the free use of violence. It is that social system which surrounds acts of violence which serves as a deterrent, not the weapon itself.

Now I see what you mean. It sounds as if you are saying, "Anarchy rules, and it wouldn't matter if it was firearms in Somalia, or machetes in Rwanda."

I still do not agree that a gun is not a deterrent. If a man has a gun, he is more able to defend himself than without one. He is also more able to do a lot of other things. Suffice it to say he is more able to enforce his will upon others, and keep them from enforcing their will upon him (Klausewitz forgive me). A man in Somalia with an automatic rifle is an opponent. A man in Somalia without a firearm is a target. The possession of a firearm changes his position. In such an anarchic, feral environment, the man with the firearm is taken much more seriously, where as the man without one can be shouldered aside and ignored, or killed outright.

Firearms are deterrents in Somalia (as we are using the country in this discussion), it is the consequences of the social environment, as you pointed out, that are different, and much more aggressive.

I'm not sure what you mean with passive significance. I understand the words and thier definitions, but I'm not so sure about your application of them here. Gimme a hand?

Railguns wrote:Fire arms are tools in the same sense that the bow and arrow are tools. Used as hunting implements. Is it necessary, in the modern age of Mcdonalds and grocery stores? Not in all but the most remote places. But hunting is still a time honored tradition in many places, and some people even prefer to live out in the wilderness.

then why don't we restrict the ownership of bows and arrows too?

I didn't say that we should....just responding.

Polonius wrote:3) Finally, those that think that the arms in this country would do little against an occupying force have very little appreciation for modern history. No occupying force has ever outlasted a dedicated citizen resistance. Algeria, Viet Nam (twice), Afghanistan (against the soviets), and most likely Iraq are all nations with a dedicated, armed citizenry that have stymied powerful, western nations trying to control them. Remember that there are 300 million people in the US, while only 1 or 2 million military members. Most of those aren't ground forces, and even fewer are actual infantry. Remember that many, if not most, would desert in the case of a tyrannical regime. Suddenly you have a few hundred thousand trying to control hundreds of millions. Everybody in the US has a car and a gun. Yes, the tanks could do lots of damage, but no place is safe and everybody is a potential insurgent. No power, up to and including the US itself, could take and hold our territory and our people without doing massive damage to the population and infrastructure.

The problem is not with the practicalities of fighting. When invading armies come into the country you have the guns and the will, no doubt. I’ve seen Red Dawn, I know what those Russian paratroopers walked into. The issue isn’t with invading armies (and who is going to invade the US anyway? Who has the blue seas navy to get troops there?) The issue is with relying on guns to protect you from your own government.

The problem is with the practicalities of politics. Tyrannical governments don’t come to power, laugh mockingly and announce they’re going to start oppressing you all and drive tanks into the centre of every city and town. They just start oppressing the small rules, the technical rules, as a result of a specific threat. Then some other threat. Then some other rule.

People were allowed their guns in Hussein’s Iraq.

The problem with relying on guns and gun owners to protect you from bad government is that gun owners are exactly the people that tend to support increasing government powers, reducing the protections from police and other government bodies.

The Bush admin has just been happily abusing the constitution every way they could think of, but where was the outcry from these people who had been holding onto their guns to protect them from government. Suddenly when government really was doing something bad… they did nothing.

grizgrin wrote:I feel that life is about death, in the end. I feel that, in a world of SUV's and Crackberries and Chicken McNuggets and Incredibly Expensive Plastic Toy Soldiers, it is easy to lose track of the jungle. But the jungle is always there. Ask the Ossetians. Right, wrong, whatever; I bet they have been reminded very painfully that the jungle is there. Would they have been invaded by Russia if they had had firearms, every man woman and child? Probably, but I bet it would have takem much more motivation on the part of ol Vlad. Wouldn't have changed the outcome much, except to get more people killed. But to be killed defending my home against a foriegn invader? My house, my family? Good enough, if my kids get away.

Ah, the Ossetians had been engaged in a civil war since the early 90s. There were arms and organised resistance groups. Chechnya was heavily armed, and it never stopped the Russians invading either. And yeah, the Chechnyans inflicted a lot of casualties on the Russians, had their city demolished as a result, but killed a lot of Russians.

djones520 wrote:Granted, America is not what it once was 250 years ago. The population has exploded to what was probably undreamed of numbers. Weapons technology today is, again, beyond the wildest dreams of what they had in the 18th century. Given the number of crazies that we have out there, we really shouldn't be able to make it so anyone can go out to buy RPG's or TOW missiles. But when it comes to matters of gun control, the government really should have no rights to dirty their hands into it, and personally I'll fight against anyone who intends to do so.

Yeah, this is the central thing, isn’t it. Gun ownership as a fundamental right to protect, err, gun ownership.

There’s no record of gun ownership being used to protect habeas corpus, or free press, or any other right. Just lots of talk about gun ownership being used to protect gun ownership.

Railguns wrote:We would rather form those organizations ourselves, when where we want and/or need them, rather than let a government, which may or may not have our bests interests in mind, mandate our tax dollars to the creation of an organization which may even act against our wishes.


Although our incipient distrust of government may actually contribute to corruption in a form of self-fulfilling prophecy, as we usually would deride the evils of government than try to cultivate a culture of respected , responsible, philanthropic government. But that too has unfortunate side effects when taken to the extreme(I.E. Communism)

A culture of respected government, open and transparent, well governed and in the interests of the people, is very, very far from any communist state.

You really can have both, because it isn’t a question of left or right, but of quality.


One of the defining myths of the US is the corruption of their government. It isn’t great, but compared to many out there it isn’t that bad. The myth also remains about the same regardless of how bad it is at any point in time.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but there is an estimated 1 gun for every three canadian citizens, totalling approximately 10 million guns. I'm unsure of the numbers of guns in the states however, but I would venture an educated guess it's a higher number per citizen. nonetheless, we aren't a gunless country. it's just our army that's like that

grizgrin wrote:
I still do not agree that a gun is not a deterrent. If a man has a gun, he is more able to defend himself than without one. He is also more able to do a lot of other things. Suffice it to say he is more able to enforce his will upon others, and keep them from enforcing their will upon him (Klausewitz forgive me). A man in Somalia with an automatic rifle is an opponent. A man in Somalia without a firearm is a target. The possession of a firearm changes his position. In such an anarchic, feral environment, the man with the firearm is taken much more seriously, where as the man without one can be shouldered aside and ignored, or killed outright.

Unless of course guns are so ubiquitous as to effectively negate any leverage one gains from their possession. Violence is ubiquitous in Somalia because it has been socially normalized. Admittedly this is a necessary step in the progression towards the nation-state. Inevitably one side will achieve dominance and impose a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. However, it is still not the gun from whence the deterrence emanates, but the ability to use that gun as a means of preventing others from acquiring similar tools.

Deterrence is factor in dealings between adversaries of comparable capacity. When the capabilities are roughly equivalent there is no deterrence, but competition. The man without the firearm can indeed be ignored, but the man with the firearm also invites violence on himself by openly challenging the will of others. In this sense the possession of weaponry serves to instigate more conflicts than it resolves.

This is not to say that violence does not have a legitimate place in world order. More problems in world history have been solved at the point of a sword than through any other method. However, I think it is mistaken to presume that arms (with the exception of nuclear ones) are ever acquired with the assumption that they will go unused.

grizgrin wrote:
Firearms are deterrents in Somalia (as we are using the country in this discussion), it is the consequences of the social environment, as you pointed out, that are different, and much more aggressive.

I'm not sure what you mean with passive significance. I understand the words and thier definitions, but I'm not so sure about your application of them here. Gimme a hand?

Passive in the sense that the mere possession of a gun somehow elevates you above the machinations of others. Deterring them from crossing your interests. To my mind the possession of a weapon does not inspire fear in others, but rather a desire to obtain similar capabilities. Hence my characterization of guns as invitations.

sebster: the only real point I was supporting in the quote you took was that it would have taken more moto to invade a country with firearms freely allowed amongst the populace as oppossed to a country that did not. Did I screw up the details of who's been fighting who, or the history of the conflict? Probably, since I'm not involved and therefore I bet it is a hell of a lot more important to them than I since it's their homes and families. Who vs. who was a lot less relevant to the point than the concept I was illustrating.

Dogma: leverage. I like the word. Good usage. So, the deterrance stems from the ability to use a firearm as leverage? I would respectfully disagree. A firearm is the lever, whether you pull it or not is a human decision. The status of a human's willpower does not change the power or potential of the tool, in this case, a firearm. A hammer is a hammer whether or not it's used to drive a nail. Or bash in a skull. I think we will just have to disagree here. I will respect your right to be wrong if you will repect mine.