Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

UK + France + Germany + Japan + Australia actually jumps the US population by about 30~40 million, but close enough. The problem I see though is that Japan makes up a disproportionate percentage and is a radically different culture then the rest. their suicide rate alone is far higher than anyone else on the list.

I always think it is tough to try and create equivalences between different cultures. There are so many factors to take into consideration outside the most simplistic two number analysis.

Well if you had to eat raw fish everyday, you'd be pretty suicidal too.

jfrazell wrote:Some quotes on original intent by the framers:

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

Indeed.



The rest of the world sits, watches, and wishes you were.

Worthy as many of the rest of the quotes are, one cannot but help wonder if they still would have made them given the horrors of 2 World Wars and the unimaginable destructive capability that "civilised" nations now posses.

We were what?

Wouldn’t have given them given the horrors of WWI and WWII? What?

That’s a nonsequitor, I’m not seeing what the rights I have as a US citizen to own a replica Colt Peacemaker have to do with the Europeans and their penchant for starting world wars.

skullspliter888 wrote:When it comes to the US guns are a HUGE part of our history. if it wasn't for guns we would not have our indentays. Basically the 2nd amendment was put in for a fail safe if said government goes dictatorship change it. On a side note i bet if you asked Jews after the Holocaust if it was a good idea to turn there guns in. Because Hitler put in to law firearms were illegal . And when it comes to crime 90% of guns used where stolen and to boot the shoot wasn't aloud to own a firearm. I'm thankful for the 2nd. if it was for me having a concealed carry permit i would be died. When in Texas i was getting in my car and a young man about 20 came up to me asking for money.i asked why? He then started to give me a speech about drugs and he was getting money to help kids as he was talking to me, 5 big Mexicans come to my car from my blind side .I saw them and at the last minutes i SAID VERY LOUDLY here let me give you some money i then pulled my Glock17 the youth then yell in Spanish i think gun and run like hell all five big guys stopped and run off. if i didn't have my gun guess what i think i would be dead right now. After fighting over seas you get gut instises and you go with them. thats why i love the 2nd it gives us the right to defend ourselves. my .03

Hitler didn't put firearms control into place, you've bought into an old myth there. The Weimar government introduced laws to limit access of firearms to the Nazis, which were largely effective and probably helped stop the escalation of violence between the Nazis and the communists. When the Nazis gained power, they used those laws to control the firearms access of their opponents, but by that point the domestic struggle was all but over.

But that's only a small part of the story, the Nazis came to power through elections, not armed struggle. When they began breaking the constitution they faced few challenges at all, let alone from groups willing to take up armed resistance. See, the truth is that most oppressive governments play up to the kinds of folk that favour gun ownership, playing on their nationalism to gain their support. In Saddam's Iraq guns were allowed and common in houses - yet resistance was minimal.

In short, relying on private ownership of firearms to protect you from a bad government is very naive. Protection from your government comes from ensuring open and accountable government actions, watchdog groups, and constant protection and expansion of civil liberties.

There are plenty of other valid arguments for guns. They can be used in self defence. They can be used in hunting. They're cool. The evidence that gun control leads to a reduction in gun crime is marginal at best. But as a means to control government, guns are utter rubbish.

jfrazell wrote:We were what?

resisting against tyranny in Government

That’s a nonsequitor, I’m not seeing what the rights I have as a US citizen to own a replica Colt Peacemaker have to do with the Europeans and their penchant for starting world wars.

Strawman distraction FTW ! You, good sir, i know are capable of a better argument than that, I've read your posts and I know you are capable of better here.

The WW X line was to do with the frankly unimaginable level of destructive capability "we" now possess with regards to both guns and other forms of warfare.

Let's face it, the sheer size of the USA pretty much renders any plausible attempt at full occupation impossible. let's be honest the only way you'll ever be conquered is either through mass destruction on an apocalyptic scale or natural disaster.


... hmm.. or possibly through the machinations of Simon Cowell for which I apologies in advance whilst welcoming our new phone voted overlords !

sebster wrote:

skullspliter888 wrote:

In short, relying on private ownership of firearms to protect you from a bad government is very naive. Protection from your government comes from ensuring open and accountable government actions, watchdog groups, and constant protection and expansion of civil liberties.

There are plenty of other valid arguments for guns. They can be used in self defence. They can be used in hunting. They're cool. The evidence that gun control leads to a reduction in gun crime is marginal at best. But as a means to control government, guns are utter rubbish.

Tell that to Morgan Tsvangirai:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91791867

Mugabe's Opponent Quits amid Escalating Violence
Listen Now [5 min 40 sec] add to playlist

Morning Edition, June 23, 2008 · In Zimbabwe, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew Sunday from the upcoming runoff election. Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, said he's stepping down because he can no longer watch his supporters being killed for the sake of power.

The same guy whose followers are being oppressed by an armed militia that is entirely seprate from the offical armed forces ?

... wait.. you're now arguing that an armed citizen militia is a bad thing ?

reds8n wrote:

jfrazell wrote:We were what?

resisting against tyranny in Government

That’s a nonsequitor, I’m not seeing what the rights I have as a US citizen to own a replica Colt Peacemaker have to do with the Europeans and their penchant for starting world wars.

Strawman distraction FTW ! You, good sir, i know are capable of a better argument than that, I've read your posts and I know you are capable of better here.

The WW X line was to do with the frankly unimaginable level of destructive capability "we" now possess with regards to both guns and other forms of warfare.

Let's face it, the sheer size of the USA pretty much renders any plausible attempt at full occupation impossible. let's be honest the only way you'll ever be conquered is either through mass destruction on an apocalyptic scale or natural disaster.


... hmm.. or possibly through the machinations of Simon Cowell for which I apologies in advance whilst welcoming our new phone voted overlords !

No not strawman argument. I seriously am not understanding what you're trying to say my man..er...eye?

reds8n wrote:The same guy whose followers are being opressed by an armed militia that is entirely separte from the offical armed forces ?

... wait.. you're now arguing that an armed citizen militia is a bad thing ?

The "armed militia" is effectively an arm of the dictator.

And yes, you will pay for the horror of Simon Cowell. As soon as we can find wherever Michael jackson ran off too, he's comin' your way mu ah hah hah

In which case I apologise wholeheartedly.. thought you were better than that

I'm not disputing your right to own a replica. I am disputing the relevance of claiming the founding fathers-- wise as I freely acknowledge they seem to have been, I'd (literally) kill for a constitution like yours over here-- I really don't think they were capable of envisioning the carnage that future weapons would make possible. For the sheer fact of the .. hmm.. "outdatedness" is the wrong word but I hope you'll see what I mean for the moment-- view of weaponry seems obvious to me that it needs looking at as a rule.


NOTE : that said, I hope you'll note i have already and continue to, agree that the initial decision of the judges in question does not and should not, have the jurisdiction to decide this. that should be, and I hope continues to be, the province of the American people themselves through the ballot box.

It's just-- as I said earlier- we, hell, the rest of the world really doesn't get your obsession with this issue.

I'll grant you that often unless you're actively involved in a scenario/situation it's not uncommon to fail to comprehend fully the gravitas of a thing.... but.... but... well, you;re America ! You were our last great hope really and it seems-- and I freely acknowlege a media bias possibly-- can you ?-- that you've stopped trying to build a better brighter future not just for your own citizens but foer the world in general.


.. wow, that reads back a tad more emtional than I intended, teach me to A; drink whilst posting and B: growup reading Justice League comics and watching westerns.


EDIT :

The "armed militia" is effectively an arm of the dictator.

as opposed to Rockerfelle/Local factory owner/Fox Network/Simon Cowell?Michael Jack.. well, alright maybe not him !.. except the junior brigade perhaps ...

An armed militia is always under the control of someone yes ? The problem being whom exactly surely /

EDIT 2 : i only just got the "eye" line.. thought you were trying British Slang or something !

I see, the founding fathers (and their better haves) didn’t have the wherewithal to envision heavy arms. True that. However, its also the argument that other rights takers (on both sides of the aisle) use for a plethora of rights.

*Its not a ballot box issue.
*Its not about changing times.
*Its not about whether this or that of the Bill of Rights are helpful or harmful.

It’s the Constitution. Arguments for and against are irrelevant. We have the right (to paaartteeyy? hey it is Friday).

EDIT 2 : i only just got the "eye" line.. thought you were trying British Slang or something !

jfrazell wrote:

reds8n wrote:The same guy whose followers are being opressed by an armed militia that is entirely separte from the offical armed forces ?

... wait.. you're now arguing that an armed citizen militia is a bad thing ?

The "armed militia" is effectively an arm of the dictator.

Is the point that the opposition would have the ability to overthrow Mugabe if they were armed? Becasue, unless their armaments permitted them the capacity to oppose Mugabe's formal military, that simply is not the case. Free access to reasonable firearms, as they are defined in the United States, does absolutely nothing to prevent the inception of a tyrannical regime. Even owning an assault weapon will do little in the face of an organized military.

Gor blimey Guvnor ! Luv a duck ! Apples and pears, trouble and strife etc etc.

Surely though the point of being able to amened such a worthy document shows that the basic concept of alteration is relevant though yes ?

The fact that all the laws and people of the USA have to be legally justified has always been the shining hope I see in the American system.

Gor blimey Guvnor ! Luv a duck ! Apples and pears, trouble and strife etc etc.

Surely though the point of being able to amened such a worthy document shows that the basic concept of alteration is relevant though yes ?

The fact that all the laws and people of the USA have to be legally justified has always been the shining hope I see in the American system.

Amending the US Constitution is difficult at best. Excluding the Bill of Rights, there have been, what 18 amendments? 2-3 took the bloodiest war in US history, one was an adjustment for VP and succession (good in case we get nuked), and two revolve around beverages of a fermented nature .
To amend you need 2/3 state's approval (not their representatives, the actual states).

As for the power of simple weaponry, the AK and its rocket launching best buddy the RPG have won more wars than any other ranged weapon system in history. And yep, they'd be pretty good against the likes of Mugabe's thugs.

I'm not trying to be off-topic here (but I am) but, I think part of America's problem reds8n in how it conducts itself globally is that our society is coming to grips with the decline of the of the last 50-60 years of Cold War indoctrination of our culture.

There's a quote that Scalia made public in his notes, that very articulately (?sp?) pointed out the hackness of Breyer and Stevens:

After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interestbalanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam).

The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.[/b]

Enough monkeying around for me, I need to paint some marines!

jfrazell wrote:
As for the power of simple weaponry, the AK and its rocket launching best buddy the RPG have won more wars than any other ranged weapon system in history. And yep, they'd be pretty good against the likes of Mugabe's thugs.

Mugabe's thugs, the militia, are ill-equppied weapons of terror. His military, however, is actually quite well developed by virtue of a development partnership undertaken with SA a number of years back. Combine that with the type of brutally indescriminate tactics associated with his regime and even RPGs and AKs will have difficulty unseating him.

Moreover, I challenge you to find an instance in which a non-state militia has won a conflict without the support of some foreign influence. AKs and RPGs may win battles, but someone has to pay for them, and it certainly isn't within the means of the average private citizen; especially not over the course of the kind of prolonged conflict implict within an armed insurrection.

Defining militia is a fluid event. Sure often they have help, but at the end of the day it’s the guerrilla with the rifle that does the trick.

USA
France (vive le Napoleon!)
Russia
Ireland
Vietnam
Mexico
Nicaragua
Most countries within Africa
Balkans
Afghanistan (several times)

As for AK’s being expensive-you can get an AK for $50US in much of the world. Its not a problem.


But again, none of this has anything to do with the Second Amendment. It’s a right US citizens have. Whether its logical in modern times is irrelevant.

jfrazell wrote:
Total murders, not just murders with firearms. Once that is incorporated in, US murder rates are strictly middling.

Relative to which other nations?

Seriously, look at homicide rates in general wikipedia has the information readily availble. Americans murder at a rate of more then double any of the other G7 nations.

No other G7 nation is even close. Yeah the US middling in murder rates when you include such shining lights as Russia, Columbia and pakistan. Hardly the best comparison points.

The need for (hand)guns is part of America's mythology. You are in McViegh land if you seriously believe you need guns to protect yourself from your government. If you even half believe that become involved politically, and quit buying the diesel and fertilizer.

dogma wrote:

jfrazell wrote:
As for the power of simple weaponry, the AK and its rocket launching best buddy the RPG have won more wars than any other ranged weapon system in history. And yep, they'd be pretty good against the likes of Mugabe's thugs.

Mugabe's thugs, the militia, are ill-equppied weapons of terror. His military, however, is actually quite well developed by virtue of a development partnership undertaken with SA a number of years back. Combine that with the type of brutally indescriminate tactics associated with his regime and even RPGs and AKs will have difficulty unseating him.

Moreover, I challenge you to find an instance in which a non-state militia has won a conflict without the support of some foreign influence. AKs and RPGs may win battles, but someone has to pay for them, and it certainly isn't within the means of the average private citizen; especially not over the course of the kind of prolonged conflict implict within an armed insurrection.

America (the communication delay being what it was at the time made that a partially winable situation, keeping in mind, the failure to sieze the entire continent)?
Cuba?
Mexico?
Most of South America?
Zimbabwea?

Well, America and Cuba almost certainly had outside sources helping, not 100% on the others though.

jfrazell wrote:Defining militia is a fluid event. Sure often they have help, but at the end of the day it’s the guerrilla with the rifle that does the trick.

USA
France (vive le Napoleon!)
Russia
Ireland
Vietnam
Mexico
Nicaragua
Most countries within Africa
Balkans
Afghanistan (several times)

Whether or not the guerrilla is considered the agent of change is really a matter of causal preference and perspective. I generally prefer to fall on the defacto powers as being the truly necessary elements in governing in determining the outcome of any revolution. That said, many of you example are not instances which I would consider to fall under the term militia. Some of them certainly do, like the USA, but those almost unfailingly depended heavily on the support of some third party.
US < France, Poland (viva Pulaski!), anyone who didn't like the brits
France & Russia < Insurrections founded on the stress of prolonged conflict in a climate of overall political uncertainty; the February Revolution effectively divided power between the interim government of Russia and the populist Soviets while the storming of the Bastille had a similar effect in France. Essentially there was no government in either of these cases.
Ireland < The IRA only secured independence after outside social pressure required it.
Vietnam < China, Soviet Union
Mexico < Segments of the Spanish nobility actually served to support this rebellion, essentially the government turned on itself
Nicaragua < the US
Africa < most countries in Africa never had formal governments to begin with, at least not as we think of them in the context of Western political history
Balkans < something of a synthesis between Africa and the French/Russian revolution, no real government
Afghanistan < WW1 freed them from the Brits and the USA freed them from the Soviets (exe: stinger missiles used against Hind attack helos by mujahadeen)

jfrazell wrote:
As for AK’s being expensive-you can get an AK for $50US in much of the world. Its not a problem.

$50US is also alot of money in significant tracts of the world where the average worker doesn't make $1US a day.

jfrazell wrote:But again, none of this has anything to do with the Second Amendment. It’s a right US citizens have. Whether its logical in modern times is irrelevant.

You are correct, though I disagree with your absolute interpretation of the 2nd.

Sorry, were Euros comparing their apples to our oranges?

Always funny.

I know, if you install ANOTHER 500,000 cameras in London, will the west end be safe or will it not be safe?

I feel safer walking the ghettos of the US than I do in London.

Laziest worst coppers I've ever had the misfortune to have to deal with.

Make sure when the facial recognition technology goes in that you add laws for the government to hold you for 42 days without recourse to the law for making an angry face.

Duh.

Helpful as ever.


Much as I deplore the unwarranted spread of CCTV in the Uk in general, it's a pretty safe place.

I asume you've extemsively trawled through all parts of London then ? Oh, wait...

We generally stopped calling them coppers in the late 1970s. Still good to see your slang is as up to date as your knowledge of what the situation actually is over here.

Now, I believe you were saying something about apples and oranges...

Are you trying to imply that a foreigner may not be as up to date on the slang as a native?

My mind is blown. You just blew my mind.

Like way dude ! Schwing !


.... no ?

I don't really want to get dragged into this, because I think the problem of gun control in the US is very complex and I don't know enough about it.
But!
Stelek, you're an american giving out about the British holding people without trial? That's just classic.

Well they used to steal our sailors and were still pretty bitter about that.

Are you sure you're not really an Iranian ?

jfrazell wrote:Tell that to Morgan Tsvangirai:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91791867

Mugabe's Opponent Quits amid Escalating Violence
Listen Now [5 min 40 sec] add to playlist

Morning Edition, June 23, 2008 · In Zimbabwe, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew Sunday from the upcoming runoff election. Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, said he's stepping down because he can no longer watch his supporters being killed for the sake of power.

Pointing out there's a country out there with a bad man in charge doesn't really prove a whole hell of a lot about gun laws. You need to demonstrate that guns would actually solve the problem. The most immediate problem with just assuming guns would keep government in line is to look at Iraq, where under Saddam civilians had access to AK-47s, yet there was no meaningful resistance.

A brief study of political history demonstrates their is simply no reason to think that a lack of guns is a factor in many tyranical governments. What is lacking is organisation and will, once those are present weaponry isn't that much of problem.

You mention in a latter post that there doesn't need to be any underlying reason for gun ownership, it's in the constitution and barring an amendment that's the end of the issue. I completely agree, because keeping to the constitution, the fundamental laws of your country, is a cornerstone of maintaining a free society. Maintaining and protecting the laws of government is one of the very important parts of ensuring civil liberties, far more important than access to small arms.