|
12 Mar 00 - 12:49 PM (#193800) Subject: Gun debate thread From: kendall How do I retrieve that thread on gun control? Rick Fielding had some interesting info on the issue.. |
|
12 Mar 00 - 12:52 PM (#193803) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: katlaughing Type gun or guns in the filter box, then set the Age to 1 year or beyond and you will find them. The alternative way is to go to Quick Links, click on Forum Search, put Rick's name in the appropriate box and then scan down the list of his postings until you find the one you are looking for. |
|
12 Mar 00 - 02:05 PM (#193846) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall thanks Kat |
|
12 Mar 00 - 02:07 PM (#193848) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Rick Fielding Oh, oh. Now what did I say? Did I mean it? Had I just read some article that ticked me off? Rick |
|
12 Mar 00 - 02:14 PM (#193853) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall I cant seem to find what I'm looking for..it was from Rick Fielding, and it had to do with the NRA ads which are designed to scare the hell out of gun worshippers |
|
12 Mar 00 - 02:31 PM (#193858) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Rick Fielding Kendall!!! I remember enough of it to know that the ads were MOST DEFINITELY NOT meant to scare gun worshippers! They were meant to scare folk who's countries have GUN CONTROL LAWS. For Christ's sake there's a hell of a diference! Rick |
|
12 Mar 00 - 02:37 PM (#193863) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Dave (the ancient mariner) And the gun controls dont work but cost a fortune... |
|
12 Mar 00 - 06:32 PM (#193976) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Irish sergeant I told myself I wasn't going to open this can of worms. Hi all. The problem isn't guns. They are, after all, only tools. The problems are A)teaching our kids respect for themselves and each other. B) Enforcing the laws that exist already equally. C)Punishing appropriately. The government has enough power already! After guns what will theyu want next? Just so you all know, I'm no big advocate of people owning rocket launhers etc but let's use some common sense. Neil (Irish Sgt,.) |
|
12 Mar 00 - 06:42 PM (#193979) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Timehiker Amen, Irish Sarge, Unfortunately, the radicals have control of both sides of this arguement. I wish I knew how to inject some common sense into it, but I don't, so I reckon I won't make a fuss. Just make sure you vote your conscience. Take care, Timehiker |
|
12 Mar 00 - 07:47 PM (#194009) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Look, all I want is to refresh that statement by Rick that the NRA ad is a crock of shit.. |
|
12 Mar 00 - 08:04 PM (#194014) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Gaffer What are these "gun" things? Is it some sort of American contraption for making people live longer? I seem to have come across the term in a song or two but the meaning is rarely elaborated. |
|
12 Mar 00 - 08:07 PM (#194015) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow Does the American Consitution actually have anything to say about the right to use common sense?
|
|
12 Mar 00 - 08:34 PM (#194025) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Gaffer Sorry chaps! Seem to have missed the old point again - thread's not about guns but about gun CONTROLS : as luck would have it, I do know a thing or two about them. Apparently there are about two of them: one is known as the safety catch and seems to be to stop the thing from going off, and the second is known as a trigger which appears to have the opposite effect - this would seem a rather counter-productive arrangement to me, and I believe that the earliest models were fitted with neither and were prone to kill as many people behind them as in front of them - a dterrent so effective that all four of the Three Musketeers relied exclusively on their swords, so maybe these gun control opponents have a point. Possibly a compromise position might be reached and that dangerous-sounding control removed leaving only the safe-sounding one. Sorry chaps, can't be your President - not a natural-born American - they used forceps! |
|
13 Mar 00 - 04:00 AM (#194125) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Wolfgang Kendall, here's how you find it, an improved variant of katlaughing's idea. go to the forum search; enter 'Fielding' forUserName AND enter 'gun' for Subject. that brings you only the about 20 threads in which Rick had his say in the several threads about guns. Wolfgang |
|
13 Mar 00 - 07:09 AM (#194141) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Chet W. I won't enter this discussion again except to say that it does seem to be pointless. If the idea that the huge number of guns in this country somehow contributes to the huge number of gun deaths does not make sense, then there's nothing else that I can say. The courts will interpret the law. The gun lobbies will buy votes for more laws (or less) and children and others will continue to die in the most violent country in the world. Happy arguing. Chet |
|
13 Mar 00 - 09:24 AM (#194170) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: bob schwarer How does Switzerland do it with a gun required? Bob S. |
|
13 Mar 00 - 09:44 AM (#194181) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall No good Kat, I just cant get it up...shut up spaw. |
|
13 Mar 00 - 11:55 AM (#194257) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Rick Fielding OK, this is what I remember about the "ONE POST" that I put in. The NRA was doing a television ad saying how bad things had gotten in the countries which had gun control. They used interviews and clips that were completely bogus regarding Canada and England. The Canadians they focused on are friends of Neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel...but they were presented as "average Canadians" which couldn't be farther from the truth. They showed demonstrations in Britain that were in reality the "fox Hunting Lobby" and claimed they were average Brits massing against their Government. The whole "militia" phenomonen just doesn't happen here for many reasons. A. Because of our 3 (or 4) party system, any unpopular Govt. can be gone in the blink of an eye (remember Joe Clark?) B. Despite being a huge country, we have no real military clout, other than to trot around the world being "peace-keepers") C. The native people that we almost anihilated have almost nothing to fight back with and consequently don't pose a threat to take over our cities and scare the crap out of "white folks". D. A politician like Pat Buchannan, or a preacher like Jerry Falwell, would be laughed out of business before they ever reached the kind of power that would mobilize the far right. I don't have anything against gun owners per se. Would never be caught dead blowin' away a deer (or squirrel for that matter) but am certainly not a vegetarian. (remember the steak and kidney pie thread?) I just found it sad that the NRA had to lie so blatantly (or had so little knowledge about anything non-American) to make their point. End of story. Rick |
|
13 Mar 00 - 12:39 PM (#194276) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall thats the one I was looking for, thanks |
|
13 Mar 00 - 01:05 PM (#194283) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Just for the record, I own a gun. It is a .38 special, 2 inch barrel. I am licensed to carry it, and I would resist any attempt to have it taken away. However, for those who can read...A WELL REGULATED MILITIA..etc. my right to keep and bear arms as an individual, comes not from the constitution, but from a gut less congress, and a strong gun lobby. |
|
13 Mar 00 - 02:43 PM (#194344) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Eric the Viking I couldn,t help adding to this from my own persective. I see, read and hear about the numbers of lunatics who shoot and kill people in the states and though I believe that we don't really need guns in any society except for the armed forces who of nessecity need them I do believe that it is people who kill, not guns. I don't know how many guns there are in the states, it must run into millions but the percentage of abusers who kill, main or threaten with them must be in the decimal point of the total percentage. Humans will always find a way to kill and though I think human life should not be wasted I can understand both sides of the argument. In the UK a couple of years ago we had some very violent knife incidents. I very much regret the deaths of children in Dunblane through shooting, the death of the headmaster of a London school (Philip Laurance) and the injuries to the children and staff in the school in Birmingham. But we had a typical knee-jerk reaction here (like the dangerous dogs act) and knife carrying became outlawed. (except for 3 inch pen knife blades) I have always carried a knife since I was about ten years old, so that give me about 40 years of experience. I have large, small and folding knives. I have never even carved my name with one in the wrong place let alone used any of them for the wrong purpose. I sharpen pencils at school,I fish, I hike, I cycle long tours, I have been wild camping, a large heavy blade knife is very useful, but I cannot carry one any longer. I had friends who used to shoot and I also used to shoot .22, 12 Bore and black powder-never shot at anything except proper targets. There are very few legitimate guns in the UK, most had to be surendered eg semi automatics and automatics-some collections worth thousands of pounds, chopped up and melted down. If you have the mind to kill or injure someone then you will find a way. I did notice that none or not many criminals handed in their guns for cutting up and destroying so it makes litle difference if they are banned or not. If you add up the number of gun deaths and knife deaths and compare them to cigarette cancers/heart disease deaths or automobile deaths or deaths through alcohol then they weigh little against the arguments to ban cars or cigs (not fags for those in USA) We even had beef on the bone banned in the UK because there was a remote chance of CJD- they never banned putting benzine (a known carcinogen) in unleaded petrol though did they? Cheers Eric. |
|
13 Mar 00 - 06:37 PM (#194467) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: MarkS Dear Kendall: Your right to keep and bear arms does not come from the congress, a gun lobby or the constitution. Your right to keep and bear arms is one of the inalienable rights with which you were "endowed by your creator" etc. The constitution does not give you the right; is takes it as axiomatic that the right is yours and forbids government from infringing it. Would that our elected officials today read the simple text of the document they have sworn to protect and defend. MarkS
|
|
13 Mar 00 - 07:07 PM (#194483) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow The only arms you were endowed with by your creator are the ones hanging from your shoulders.
How come we never seem to hear about people in the States insisting on their constitutional right to wear swords? Much more decorative, much more impressive, much less likely to kill bystanders. Not that easy to kill anyone at all, actually, especially by accident.
I'd have thought there'd be a case for arguing that the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is more basic than any "right to bear arms", other than the natural variety.
I understand the Swiss don't go in for shooting each other the way Americans do. If this changed, and they had massacres in schools all over the place, I suspect they'd have a referendum, and impose drastic restrictions, since that is the way the Swiss work. (But then I gather all the indications are that, if the Americans were allowed to have a referendum on the subject, that is what they would vote for as well.) |
|
13 Mar 00 - 07:13 PM (#194489) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Osmium I have resisted entering into both this and previous very emotive threads on the subject but have to agree with M of H above; any law or natural state that puts the life of a child at more risk than it needs to be seems nonsense to me and things have changed since the civil war in America; haven't they? |
|
13 Mar 00 - 07:24 PM (#194496) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Actually, it's not even our fault..that right to keep and bear arms stuff is a direct result of the oppression of the colonists by the British government 200 years ago. It is an over reaction as it were.diving for cover.. OK 'nuff said..lets just drop this once and for all..ok? I got the info I was asking for when I started this thread. |
|
14 Mar 00 - 01:27 AM (#194601) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Art Thieme There are no inalienable rights. There are just the things we allow and don't allow at a given moment in time. To me, this song highlights the whole problem :
Bob shot one and Louis shot two,
Angels laid him away,
Miss Collins wept--Miss Collins moaned,
Oh, my lord, now, ain't it hard,
("Louis Collins" --- Mississippi John Hurt--1928) |
|
14 Mar 00 - 05:41 PM (#194896) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Frankie Maybe the 2nd amendment should have read "...right to bear muskets." |
|
14 Mar 00 - 06:12 PM (#194906) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: katlaughing Amen to that, Frankie. |
|
14 Mar 00 - 09:34 PM (#195038) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow Maybe it reallly was "the right to bare arms", and someone spelt it wrong...
But the point I raised before interests me, is this bizarre provision understood to cover swords as well? And if not, why not?
After all, swords were still pretty commonly worn at the time. Is there a National Sword Association which is keeping a low profile?
Does the provision cover blowpipes and catapults and battleaxes as well? And how about 12 foot pikes? Or knobkerries? Boomerangs? Those nasty little star-shaped things they throw around in Kung Fu movies? Klingon battlars, or whatever they're called - now that's what I call a real tough guy's weapon. Guns are for wimps. |
|
14 Mar 00 - 09:39 PM (#195042) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Chet W. Should point out that in Switzerland that all men of 18 to something are issued a weapon and are considered on-call soldiers, but they are also given a sealed box of bullets, and should that box become untimely unsealed there's hell to pay. That along with the above- mentioned relative lack of interest, compared to the US, of expressing masculinity (or more to the point the lack of it) by brandishing weapons and occasionally using them, would help to explain some of the difference. This may seem weird, but it struck me when I watched the movie Braveheart a few years ago (that showed battlefield scenes with hacking and spearing) that this was a much more civilized way to fight that with modern weaponry. If you're going to kill someone you should have to look at his eyes and smell his sweat and your own adrenaline, rather than firing the cowardly shot from a distance, which any depraved chicken shit can do for the price of a carton of smokes. Chet |
|
14 Mar 00 - 10:33 PM (#195077) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Midchuck That's just the point. Guns are for wimps. A good big man can always beat a good little man in a fist fight or a sword fight or a club fight or.... But with guns the big guy is just a bigger target. Guns took away the large oaf's natural advantage. The large oafs have never forgiven this. Peter. |
|
15 Mar 00 - 12:36 AM (#195184) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Smitty If some of you folks took the time to do a little research on 2nd amendment, you would come across dozens and dozens of letters between various political factions who formulated the amendment. They all agreed that the wording " a well regulated militia" referred to a government agency that had, (historically) become uncontrollable or under the control of an dictator or similar. The individual right to bear arms was an effort to offset this military power and never let it get the upper hand in this country as it had all over the rest of the world. |
|
15 Mar 00 - 05:43 AM (#195251) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: The Shambles I avoided this thread but I am now glad that I opened it. The good common sense expressed here gives me some hope.
She could have been my daughter and he could be my son..
Tears And Winter Rain(Song For Kayla)
The slightest glimpse of springtime
Will things now be different?
This life was not of her choosing
The slightest glimpse of springtime
Will things now be different? |
|
15 Mar 00 - 06:51 AM (#195267) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Hyperabid Oops... This subject again. To quote one of our more famous comics Eddie Izzard:- "The NRA tell you that guns don't kill people... People kill people... But you've got to admit the gun helps!" Hyp |
|
15 Mar 00 - 11:39 AM (#195448) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Art Thieme The 1700s was a different time. Those who wrote the ammendment knew that without guns/weapons they wouldn't've been able to break away from England's/government's unacceptable rule. To protect what was won (a new and better government we felt), this law was seen to be important enough to require an ammendment to the constitution. (All this is pretty obvious so far.) In the year 2000 some say we have an out of control situation with desperate and sometimes paranoid PEOPLE willing to use guns to blow others who are different out of existence. "Social contract" tells us that in extraordinary times we need to take extraordinary measures. We make a deal to give up some things in order to achieve others. To insure domestic tranquility we sometimes use outrageous methods to quell outrageous and dangerous people/situations. Will those measures be taken? Well, only if THE GOVERNMENT, with the consent of the majority, sees fit to do it. "THE LAW" is whatever the Supreme Court says it is at any given moment. With the current Supreme Court in the U.S.A., no or at least few measures will be taken to limit guns. That's just a fact here and now. The Supreme Court, as it stood under Chief Judge Earl Warren and back in Rooseveltian times, just may have simply outlawed guns given our rate of anarchy in certain recent years. We sent the cavalry out West in the 1860s.---For better or for worse, we did it. During the Civil War we solved the problems in a similar but larger way. Where will it all end? Who the hell knows??? My hopes for us all are that we will avoid the worst of it------as individuals, as a people, as a country---as a world. Now I see why "May you live in interesting times" is a curse. Art Thieme |
|
15 Mar 00 - 03:31 PM (#195590) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow I still want to know - if I come over on a trip to America is it all right if I wear a sword on my belt or carry a meat axe around with me? I mean I wouldn't want to fail to keep in tune with the spirit of the Constitution. |
|
15 Mar 00 - 03:46 PM (#195604) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Peg aw come on, guns don't kill people... people with guns kill people. peg |
|
15 Mar 00 - 04:12 PM (#195621) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Jim Krause "A well regulated militia, being necessary . . ." is frequently forgotten, omitted or ignored in the whole gun debate. The POINT was that gun ownership in 1789 was PREDICATED upon the owner's membership in the State Militia (nowadays known as the National Guard) In the 18th century this was mandatory service for ALL men age 16 to 60, and avoidance of militia drill was punishable by jail or fine. In other words, you had the right to be in the National Guard, not to own a gun for the heck of it. If we really wanted to keep the spirit of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution alive, any citizen who could legally buy a military style automatic weapon,would be AUTOMATICALLY enlisted in his or her state's National Guard, and be required to attend drill complete with arm and ammunition. How would the NRA like that? |
|
15 Mar 00 - 04:15 PM (#195625) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Rick Fielding Just heard another one, "Guns don't kill people, people with agendas kill people"! Weird thing. Even though I'm pretty gun-control, many years ago at a private firing rage (I'll never be rich but I know some rich folks) I discovered that I was a crack shot. Hmmmmmmm, that Red Ryder Daisy air rifle must have had SOME effect. Rick |
|
15 Mar 00 - 04:19 PM (#195627) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: katlaughing guns are purposely designed to kill the argument about cars killing is specious; no one engineers a car to see how many people it can plow down in a matter of seconds how many children have stolen their parents' car, then driven it into their schools in order to kill as many classmates as possible? Why do we insist in having objects whose sole purpose is to kill, available to children? McGrath, interesting question. I am sure people would freak out and tackle you as a crazy man if you showed up at customs that way. Any kind of combat/killing needs to involve up close and personal....long range allows desensitisation and a surreal impersonality which are antisocial. |
|
15 Mar 00 - 04:49 PM (#195637) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Wesley S I can't help but think that 99.999 percent of the people have already made up their minds how they feel about this subject { abortion too } and nothing written here will make them change their position either way. I've stopped talking with my brother about it - he feels one way and I'm on the other side. So may I be so bold as to ask what the point of this thread is?? Are we trying to convert the other side or are we trying to vent? Just curious as to the reason behind the posts here. This is not a criticism - just an observation. |
|
15 Mar 00 - 06:17 PM (#195666) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Art Thieme ALL ingroups exist for recognition from the outgroup. Art |
|
15 Mar 00 - 07:08 PM (#195691) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow "I am sure people would freak out and tackle you as a crazy man if you showed up at customs that way."
It's tempting...
The thing is, I can't see any way how the constitutional bit can be interpreted in a way that allowed guns, and forbade cutting and crushing weapons which were in fact less dangerous.
Soddy's suggestion about the National Guard would make sense.I'd imagine there'd have to be some other kind of about being in any kind of National Guard, such as eye tests and sanity tests and such like, which might affect a fair number of NRA enthusiasts.
They used to have a rule in South Africa that knobkerries. These are "cultural weapons", sticks with great lumps on the end of them, sort of Zulu shillelaghs, that the size of the knob (shut up 'spaw) couldn't be bigger than you could fit in your mouth.
They could try something like that I suppose with the American cultural weapons..."Put for gunny where your mouth is" as the saying almost goes.
|
|
15 Mar 00 - 09:38 PM (#195796) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Chet W. I for one am tired of the amateur constitutional interpretations and trying to read the minds of people dead for centuries. I think now that this whole gun thing is a chance for us to show whether we are decent people or not. It is just too much for me to try to fathom someone sitting at home with scads of loaded guns, feeling smug about his/her rights, and not being willing to consider that people having their children shot at school might have some rights too. That person is just too selfish for words, or for any more of my consideration. Grow up and do the right thing. It's not too late for most of us. Chet |
|
16 Mar 00 - 05:06 AM (#195952) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Smitty For our British friend - who am I quoting? " It's Tommy this, Tommy that, Tommy step aside--- Oh yes, let us do away with all the guns, gun nuts and extremists; including those who formulated the 2nd amendment. We are SO much more sophisticated today--- Visualize a group of toughs kicking down your door to get your social security check. Gee, gosh, I don't think anyone has the right to protect themselves. Such a VIOLENT thought. They police will come - - - - Get real gentlemen! Why do you think law enforcement people go armed. Why do you think the criminal elemlents are gleeful indeed at the though of disarming all civilians?? Again to our British friend: Does your memory go back to WWII when dear ole England begged ( and received) hundreds of civilian arms from the good ole US of A to help repel the Nazis when they crossed the Channel. |
|
16 Mar 00 - 05:34 AM (#195953) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Hyperabid I am a little perplexed by this argumanet as I have now seen it several times in various threads on this subject. "I need a gun because if I don't have one the forces of the state will come and torture me and seize all I have." It would seem to me that you live in a 200 year old democracy that remains the most powerful indutrialised nation in the world, in the unlikely event that the forces of the state decide to repress you, I feel resonably sure that a couple of handguns or rifles are not going to make much difference. I seem to remember your national guard and army have tanks and stuff like that. We in the UK remain eternally grateful for the help provided by US citizens and the US goverment in fighting WWII - a war that was about the survival of democracy in Europe. High handed and sarcastic reminders are a daily blessing that always endear our transatlantic cousins to us. Kind regards... Hyp. |
|
16 Mar 00 - 07:31 AM (#195978) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: bob schwarer Thank you. |
|
16 Mar 00 - 06:42 PM (#196372) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Elektra Going somewhat crosswise to the topic here, but I find all the remarks about children being "endangered" most interesting...
Other than the brute strength bits, I could (and did) diassemble, clean and reassemble any of my father's guns/rifles before I was six. Never once did I so much as go near them if he wasn't right there beside me. He ingrained respect for the power of firearms so deeply within me that to this day I cannot point a gun at someone in jest, even if I have verified for myself that the chamber/barrel/magazine is empty.
On the other hand, as an adult having served in the military, I can say with complete confidence: while I pray that (gods forbid) I never have to shoot anyone, I sure as hell ain't gonna miss.
My point is, _education and parenting_, more than anything else, are the real issues here, when it comes to children and guns. I think too many people want to pass the buck on this, when really it belongs right in each of our laps. When my son was young I did not keep guns in the house, though we discussed gun safety fairly regularly, along with other important topics. (What to do if you find one, what to do if a friend has one, etc.) Sadly, common sense cannot be legislated. Even worse, the types of parent who can't or won't display any sense are exactly the ones who would be unaffected by attempts to legally "force" it on them. (Witness the recent 6 yr old who murdered a classmate, whose parents were dealing drugs and apparently had a houseful of stolen and "lost" weapons.) I have no problem with a waiting period, and I believe anyone who actively carries should be required to take periodic safety/training classes.
I don't like hunting for sport, though if people actually USE what they kill I have no problem with it. I agree that guns are a tool -- though granted, a largely unnecessary one. There will always be people on the violent fringes of things... AND people who need protection from them. But blanket anti-gun laws will not make either of those problems go away.
My $0.02 *elektra*
|
|
16 Mar 00 - 07:10 PM (#196382) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Osmium Elektra Whils't I agree that wise parenting can make the use of the most dangerous weapon "safe" in the hands of some - the item that most of us non USA citizen's find hard to comprehend is that simple statistics show that USA children are more at risk than any other nation from guns - that is there is a simple and good correlation between the number of guns in the USA per head of population and the number of child deaths by shooting, whether accidental or intentional, and it is higher than any where else in th world. Lastly, and not directed to you personally, it has never taken the working classes long to arm themselves to sufficient levels to win a war against there own governments should the need really arise. Civil war will never be comfortable so why keep weapons for an eventuality which will probably never happen but further risks the life of your child. Nearly last, within any population there will be an unstable element, look at MudCat!, so good parenting will never happen accross the whole population - therefore arms should be issued only to those who really need them and then under the most stringent of controls. Don't trust your government just vote them out if they ain't trustworthy. |
|
16 Mar 00 - 07:49 PM (#196401) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Laurel Paulson-Pierce to bring us back to the musical vein-- Cheryl Wheeler has a song "If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns" which is an amazing string of lyrics and Ani DeFranco's title song on her new album is also about NRA and weapons title? To The Teeth (as in armed....) |
|
16 Mar 00 - 07:55 PM (#196406) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Laurel As a volunteer fire fighter, I have witnessed first hand in the last month the pain and grief brought on by guns due to 2 suicides in my neighborhood recently. At least they didn't take someone else's life. The death which occured last month in our area was caused by stabbing. It has been a rough month. and this is a small rural area, not some crowded urban place. |
|
16 Mar 00 - 07:58 PM (#196407) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow I know this is a gun debate thread - but isn't anybody going to answer my reasonable question about swords and suchlike? Are they protected by the same bit of the constitution or not?
There must have been a court case sometime.
All the stuff about needing arms to be able to fight the government seems a bit odd. If you want to fight the government, you don't worry about whether you can get arms legally or not. "Oh dear, we can't tool up down at the local gun-store, we'd have to do some gun-running. I suppose we'll have to call off the revolution."
|
|
16 Mar 00 - 11:03 PM (#196561) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Rick Fielding Hi McGrath, actually we had an incident in Toronto a couple of years ago where an obviously deranged man (social workers called him "cerebrally disadvantaged") was swinging a sword at passersby near a bus. The cops shot him, and for many months the question of was he "actually posing a danger to society" was debated in the papers and the courts. Arguments ensued as to whether his "weapon" was a sword or because of it's length "a knife". Any wonder I sometimes think the human race has too much time on it's hands? Rick |
|
17 Mar 00 - 12:43 AM (#196599) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Gary T Hi, McGrath. I'm no expert on this, but I'll tackle it from a common-sense viewpoint (of course, that also means MY viewpoint). Our second amendment says "arms", not "firearms", so any hand-held weapon would be included. Nevertheless, the right assured in this amendment is not so broad as to be beyond regulation. Various local-level laws (state, county, city) restrict what can be done with weapons in public. Often the restrictions are tighter for handguns than for long arms, due to the greater potential for misuse afforded by their concealability and easier, quicker deployment. Swords would likely be less restricted than firearms, but I'm sure there are places where wearing one could be a violation. Certainly brandishing one would be,in most places where the general public is around. The constitution guarantees the right of ownership and, shall we say, reasonable use. What's reasonable out on your 400-acre farm is different from what's reasonable in New York City. Even the right of ownership is not universal, being prohibited to felons, the insane, etc. And certain classes of arms (e.g. fully automatic rifles) are prohibited, with a few closely-monitored exceptions for bona-fide collectors. As mentioned before, the Supreme Court interprets the laws, so what the second amendment does and does not provide is subject to change, although the Court tends to avoid reversing precedent. So you could probably wear a sword in some locales, but raising a fuss over the right to do so is akin to insisting on having a good outhouse in the back yard. In this day of firearms and indoor plumbing, swords and outhouses don't appeal to very many folks. |
|
17 Mar 00 - 01:01 AM (#196607) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,The Beanster Thank you, Soddy, for saying what I would have said. If the ignorance didn't p..s me off so much, it would truly amuse me to hear gun-toting, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals quoting the 2nd Ammendment totally out of context in an effort to protect their illusion of power--their guns. An individual has no constitutional right to carry a firearm. People who own guns, if inclined to depression and suicide, are much more likely to actually commit the act with a gun when one is handy AND they tend to either intentionally or unintentionally kill family members with them. Ain't that a happy thought. I guess if you live by the gun... |
|
17 Mar 00 - 08:40 AM (#196706) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: bob schwarer Two points. Actualy the neandertal was quite remarkable. Was around for some 100K years. Also had a larger brain than moderns. Second. "Well regualted" had nothing to do with being under someones control. It had to do with the person being proficient in what he was doing. I can send you a copy of the manual of arms of the time showing what a "well regulated" soldier or militiaman was expected to do. Bob S. |
|
17 Mar 00 - 08:54 AM (#196709) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST Click |
|
17 Mar 00 - 09:03 AM (#196712) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Gary T Smitty's first post and Bob Schwarer's last post conform to the principle I've heard that the "well regulated milita" potentially consists of every citizen. Although the National Guard is sometimes called the Militia, it is not the same thing. It is instead essentially an auxiliary branch of the U.S. Army. The citizen milita mentioned in the 2nd amendment is not a regular, organized, ongoing body--it is everyday folks equipped to fight tyranny if and when necessary. Note that the amendment does not say that one must be an official member of the militia in order to claim the right to bear arms, it merely mentions that a free state needs the capability to have one--in other words, the citizens must be capable of effectively resisting an oppressive government. The fact that U.S. citizens have as yet not needed to do this attests to the good design of the Constitution as a whole, but does not render impossible the need to do so in the future (I don't think it will ever happen, but it's not impossible). This right does not extend to doing whatever one wishes whenever and wherever ones wishes with his weapons, thus the various laws restricting and regulating the possession and use of arms. But the basic right to own them was, and by many still is, considered essential to prevent, and if necessary depose, an oppressive, tyrannical government. |
|
17 Mar 00 - 09:25 AM (#196718) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,anthony I have a limited edition, chrome-plated, custom, accurized Ruger .44 Blackhawk with ivory grips and Charleton Heston's signature engraved on the barrel. Anybody want to trade even up for a 1937 D-18? (Just kidding, really!) |
|
17 Mar 00 - 10:04 AM (#196729) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Elektra While I don't realistically think the government will be in need of overthrowing anytime soon, Constitution or no, I *do* support gun ownership for personal protection and home defense.
Of course, unlike me (thankfully for them) most people have not been the recipient of legitimate death threats, nor a victim of multiple stalkers... and no, it has never been job related and I am not famous or anything -- it's just plain rotten luck.
While so far the legal system has worked in my favor, I can't keep the police beside my bed for the rest of my life... but I *can* have a little extra "insurance", and I don't find that the least bit unreasonable. *elektra* |
|
17 Mar 00 - 12:04 PM (#196785) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Dear Elektra. You are quite right in saying that personal protection is your own responsibility. Unfortunately the police would tell you to make a prison of your home and lock yourself in it. By doing so they are forcing you to live miserably in fear. However, I do not know of one police officer that isnt happy when he finds a dead criminal and not a dead victim. I can quote many instances where the knowledge that you are prepared to defend yourself with force prevented a crime. Nobody seems to be collecting those statistics. I am not into militia's or any right to bear arms. But I am concerned that people think gun control is the answer. Check out Northern Ireland 300 years history of failed arms control. The Pathans in Afghanistan buy them from manufacturers in Pakistan who use foot operated lathes to make AK 47 clones in their work shops. The mighty Soviet Union failed to control them there too! I do not advocate that people should have unrestricted access to guns but must plead for sanity when trying to control them. The only people who get to suffer are the millions of decent firearm owners who end up paying a fortune for their sport. Now we suffer the vehement anger of people who equate violence with guns. We are accused of being stupid, rabid, worshipping guns, right wing bigots etc. Strange when I am attending range safety instruction and regularly go target shooting with a retired Doctor of Music; and shoot with a retired nurse. Watch my fireman friend who just saved pepoles lives during a fire, compete on the range. They dont seem to fit the mold do they? When you apply moral culpability to inanimate objects, the world is insane. Stop drunk driving and ban automatic transmissions. It was the golf clubs fault your honour not mine... etc ad nauseum. Criminals dont obey laws. the law abiding do, simple logic... If you all want to save more childrens lives, lets remember that more kids get killed by automobiles than guns. They are licensed registered and insured, but how many drunks without a license and driving without insurance kill people every year? I think you anger would be better directed at cars than guns IMO. Yours,Aye. Dave |
|
17 Mar 00 - 12:49 PM (#196791) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Isn't that like saying, "Oh well, I have the clap, so, I might as well have cancer too?" |
|
17 Mar 00 - 01:12 PM (#196800) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Amos I think Dave's point is not like that, kendall -- he was saying it is not the object but the user who needs better control. That's more like saying, "I have the clap -- maybe we should do better health inspections on the cathouses...", if you really want to bend metaphors :>) Warm regards, A |
|
17 Mar 00 - 01:20 PM (#196804) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: simon-pierre Pakistan, Russia, Nothern Ireland... No need to look so far! Just in Canada, there's a strong gun control policy and it does really work (and, may this last forever, there's no NRA). Groups who wear firearms are military, police, organized crimes and sport hunters... and that's too much. I think I'm not the only canadian who is scared to see what happen in USA. I don't think I have «any» right to wear firearm. But I have the right to walk in security in my town, and not be afraid to what could happen to my kids at school. SP |
|
17 Mar 00 - 02:01 PM (#196830) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow Well, I know there's been a little bit of trouble over in Northern Ireland over the last few years - but I think if you check the figures, you're a lot more likely to be shot if you're living in the United States than you would be likely to have been shot or blown up in Northern Ireland, even at the height of the troubles. That is especially true if you're a child in schoool.
However, you pays your money and you takes your choice. If Americans are willing to put up with all the killing, that's up to them. But it'd be a bit better if they said "Well, it's a price worth paying for what we see as freedom", rather than trying to claim that somehow having all those guns around doesn't increase the number of people getting shot.
Of course, in theory, it might be that the reason gun deaths are so much higher there than in other countries isn't anything to do with the availability of guns, it's because Americans are intrinsically more violent - but I can't really believe that is true, I think it's a libel on decent people. A libel made by people who claim to be patriotic. Strange.
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken,
You can always find a Bob Dylan quote to fit. |
|
17 Mar 00 - 08:03 PM (#196980) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: MarkS Well I always thought that if we have a crime problem it is not because we have guns, it is because we have criminals. I remember that during the depression, enemployment and social problems were vastly worse than they are today, and guns were vastly more easily available, but the crime rate was vastly lower. Whats the difference? Not enough of a social scientist to say. Only can relate that according to FBI statistics, something like 600,000 crimes were prevented because the chosen victim was able to display or use a firearm for self defense. Also can relate that in those states which enabled concealed carry legislation, the rate of violent crime went down after the passage of the legislation. Seems reasonable - Two victims walk down the street. One is known to be unarmed and for the other, there is a thought that they may BE armed. Who is chosen? And an aside to McGrath - I prefer to think we could settle our diffences on this issure amicably, preferably at a local pub, over a pint, or two, or seven. But you do illustrate why there is passion on the subject. Do you really think I need an eye or a sanity test? I can read the print on my NRA membership card clearly! MarkS |
|
17 Mar 00 - 08:17 PM (#196981) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: catspaw49 Anyone want to say a few words to the folks at Smith&Wesson who decided today to start putting locks, etc. on their guns and developing "print locks" and other safety devices? Seems to be a good start, but I'm already hearing flak from the NRA. S&W had all the lawsuits dropped....a good economic reason. Spaw |
|
17 Mar 00 - 08:38 PM (#196984) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: katlaughing Good for them, Spaw! We had two extremes here, recently. An escaped convict, on the run and having already shot a trooper, showed up at a remote ranch. The rancher and his son were able to subdue him, bring him inside and feed him while help was on the way. They did this with the rifles they trained on him in a crossfire and letting him know what was going on. On the other end, an "estranged" husband went wild, shot up his house with wife and kids in it, missing the mom by a mere inch or two. She ran to his parents' for protection, along with the kids. When he was arraigned in court, the judge made note of the fact that HIS entire family asked that he not be released on low bail as they were all afraid of him. When police searched his home, they found an arsenal. His wife has a restraining order against him, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were her. The last guy who got pissed about something like that went out to the ranch where his soon-to-be ex-wife was living and killed her, despite the court order to stay away. What is the answer? Who knows? As long as people insist on having guns...people will be killed. There have to be compromises, at the very least, thus actions like S&W's, today. I just hope our government and police/sheriff's depts. can get to the point where they can protect the rest of us from those who are seemingly so paranoid. And lest anyone think I don't know beans about guns, please go read the op/ed piece I posted last year in the thread which I linked at the beginning of this one. Thank you, kat |
|
17 Mar 00 - 10:13 PM (#197010) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Dave (the ancient mariner) In Canada we have laws that restrict the ownership of restricted guns; and to some degree I support these laws. On the other hand I now must pay a fortune to register my firearms and although trained by the military and NRA and passed two provincial hunting safety courses I must now attend another and pay for it... Yeah in Halifax the Local drug dealers just pocket their guns and go down town I have a dozen laws to follow just to go to the local range. Yeah gun contol works just check out Toronto any week you like. Yours,Aye. Dave (unable to afford my sport for the last two years) |
|
17 Mar 00 - 10:37 PM (#197019) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow Mark - I doubt if there's any duifferences which would make yioui shoot me, or make me refuse a drink. "Do you really think I need an eye or a sanity test? " I wasn't really thinking about you. Possibly Charlton Heston...
More to the point, I'm thinking people like Hamilton, in Scotland who killed all those school children in Dunblane, and had a proper legal licence and was a member of gun clubs and all.
There are crazy people around, and there are people with bad eyesight - and my impression (which may be wrong), and even if you think guns should stay legal, that shouldn't apply to people like that. I would have thought that a National Rifle Organisation would be pushing for rigorous gun control rather than opposing it.
As I said in my previous post, it's clear that a sufficient number of Americans believe that the freedom to own guns is important to stop the one who disagree with them from banning them - but that should go with a recognition that there is a price to be paid for it, rather than denying that there is such a price.
Nobody would claim that cars don't kill thousands of people who otherwise would live out their lives; it is evidently seen by most people as worth the human cost. But supporters of guns don't seem to be willing to bite the bullet and say that. |
|
17 Mar 00 - 10:56 PM (#197028) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: MarkS McGrath - Actually the NRA is pushing for rigorous enforcement of the 20,000 or so gun laws already on the books, and is first in line to champion the incarceration of criminals who commit crimes with guns. Often, you will read of a murder or a crime committed with a gun, and two paragraphs later you read that the guy who did it had a lengthy record of arrests and convictions for similar acts. you must ask yourself A. Why is this fellow on the street instead of behind bars, and B. Why is government demonizing ME? We should plan on that drink sometime. I'm sure it would be an enjoyable evening! Marks |
|
17 Mar 00 - 11:43 PM (#197061) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Smitty To Gary T.: Thank you for the rational explanation of 2nd amendment. Better than my meager efforts... Sorry McGrath, no sarcasm was intended to you or any of our British friends.. On gun ownership, - - - somehow I just keep having horrible visions of folks in africa being hacked to death with axes and machettas by a bunch of goons when just one ole single barrel shotgun in each house would have stopped this nonsense cold! |
|
18 Mar 00 - 12:21 AM (#197077) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,The Beanster I love this thread. You folks, whether I agree or disagree with you, have put some really thoughtful opinions down and they are a pleasure to read. Having said that, I am all for "terminating" any criminal who is intending to do me or a loved one harm. Also, I would be happy to blow to smithereens anyone who entered my apartment while I was home, whether they were armed or unarmed, so don't get me wrong here. I work with all different types of criminals every day in my job. I just know that if I owned a gun, it is more likely that it would ultimately be used against me than used against the intruder. I wouldn't want to introduce a firearm into a situation where, if I'd left things alone, there would've been none. But getting back, an individual does not a militia make and although I am not a constitutional scholar, I have suffered through my share of classes in constitutional law and it seems to me that the 2nd Amendment is fairly clear in its wording. I do find it puzzling that pro-gun Americans don't see the apparent connection between us owning so many guns and all the thousands of gun deaths every year in this country. What is it, coincidence?? The rest of the world pales in comparison, statistically. On the other hand (not to thread creep too much), I think McGrath brings up an interesting question: is the American culture inherently more violent than other cultures? There has been research done that supports this--there has also been research which debunks the theory. Either way, if it's not true that Americans are unusually violent, then it seems that the guns, not the people, are the problem. If it IS true, we're only encouraging more bad behavior from a people who are already prone to violence by allowing them easy access to guns. Both ways, as long as guns are available on every street corner or gun show, we lose.
|
|
18 Mar 00 - 09:03 AM (#197158) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Has anyone but me wondered why women get involved with men who abuse? I'll never believe that men like the guy with the arsenal just suddenly went round the bend. My advice.. Stay the hell away from those creeps!! Sure, nice guys are dull, but, you will live longer with them. |
|
18 Mar 00 - 09:09 AM (#197161) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Another thing...every jail and prison in this country is full. Thats why so many offenders are on the street. Judges are reluctant to squeeze more criminals into already over crowded pens. It is unconstitutional to do so.(Cruel and unusual punishment) What happens every time a proposal comes before the tax payer to build another prison? NO NO NO!! not in MY back yard, and/or too much money..Folks, I'm afraid that the problem is US. Pogo was right. |
|
18 Mar 00 - 11:15 AM (#197197) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Terapln I'm writing this from the point of view of someone who has had a great deal to do with guns. I've taught gun safety and marksmanship, run competitive pistol and rifle matches, I hunt and I carry a concealed weapon (with the kind permission of my state govt.) I've been able to do all this beacuse thirteen years ago I was able to keep two men from pushing their way into my home in the middle of the night. My life, and that of my wife was likely saved because I had a gun, and the two men were convinced that I would use it on them. The gun debate will always be difficult because there is so much emotion involved. Both on the pro side who tend to get upset (rightfully in my view) of others who think that their property should be taken away. And the other side who operate so much on emotion that they think songs are the best political arguments they can make. The founders (who were truly not perfect, see slavery as an example) were students of history and saw how from the times of the Romans that goverments preserved their power by having strength of arms over the people. The US has many troubles As a society we drink and drug ourselves into stupors, we go off to work and leave our children to grow up on their own, we sit in our livingrooms and theatres and soak ourselves in violence and filth, and we have immigration problems that nearly no other industrialized nation has. There has been no real change in pistol or rifle design since the turn of the century. Despite what the media would have you think there have been high capacity semi-auto pistols since the '30s. Guns are more restricted now than they ever have been. Up untill 1968 you could get guns by mail. Now we have 20,000 city, state and federal regulations. We have had a Brady Law for nearly a decade, and nearly none of the people who break it are prosecuted, leaving them to find guns in other ways. In fact federal firearms prosecutions have been nearly non-existant during this presidents term, the same president who now demands more laws. There are no easy answers, but infringing rights, and passing laws won't change the underlying problems. Untill the people of America come to terms with our birthright and take resonsibility for our lives. Unless we realise that freedom is a actuall living, tangible thing. Freedom means political speech, not getting to say "ass" on TV. Freedom is choosing to worship in the way you choose, not preventing others from doing it. And yes, freedom means the right to defend yourself, and the ability to own the means. |
|
18 Mar 00 - 11:57 AM (#197235) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall The idea of the trigger lock is simply to keep kids from stealing the weapon and shooting someone. Who can argue with that? |
|
18 Mar 00 - 01:53 PM (#197266) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow "Actually the NRA is pushing for rigorous enforcement of the 20,000 or so gun laws already on the books" - so why do oppose the kind of minimal gun control measures they do appear to oppose?
What's wrong with making people wait a reasonable time before they can buy a gun, and providing some kind of proof that they are sane and responsible and competant?
People who value gun ownership should be all in favour of making gun control as rigorous as possible, and making it difficult to join the gun owning elite. To give a daft analogy, if musical instruments could kill people, wouldn't we be all in favour of those kind of rules to cut down the danger of them being misused? Would we think that people who opposed such controls were friends of music?
Why don't sensible people who value the right to own guns tell the NRA to get off their backs? |
|
18 Mar 00 - 04:30 PM (#197331) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall We do. I bought a hand gun a few years ago at a store 50 miles from here. Had to wait a week or so. No problem. Sure, I had to drive an extra 100 miles, but, so what? I also appreciate seeing police officers on the roads too. Old Maine proverb.. if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs...only the one it hits will yelp. I also question that oft quoted thing about gun laws..20,000? sounds like bs to me. |
|
18 Mar 00 - 04:33 PM (#197335) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall I started this thread..can I end it? PLEASE?? |
|
18 Mar 00 - 04:48 PM (#197347) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: The Beanster Kendall--created a monster, eh? lolol it's alive, It's Alive, IT'S ALIVE!!! |
|
18 Mar 00 - 05:13 PM (#197362) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Midchuck I don't see why it should end until we have as many posts in support of private gun ownership as opposing it. Could be a real long one - I wonder if Guns and Ammo has a website....I could start crossposting.... Peter. |
|
18 Mar 00 - 06:12 PM (#197379) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow Good try, kendall, but evidently premature... "Old Maine proverb.. if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs...only the one it hits will yelp."
No, that proverb doesn't seem very clear to me.
Does it mean that, if you're being hassled by a pack of dogs, it's no use throwing a stone to try to protect yourself? So get a gun?
Or is it that, if someone complains about something, it means that they've been hurt by it, and if they don't, it means they haven't? With the implication being that only the people who object to tighter gun controls are going to bother to complain about them, and the ones who would like to see tighter guncontrols aren't going to bother to make their voices heard? Apathy rules?
|
|
18 Mar 00 - 07:43 PM (#197412) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall I just tell em, I dont explain em. OK maybe its time for the gun supporters to speak, then we can end this. |
|
18 Mar 00 - 07:50 PM (#197417) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: catspaw49 Yeah, just sit back and relax Kendall..........'bout time for your back-up light ain't it? Spaw |
|
19 Mar 00 - 11:53 AM (#197670) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Right...I wouldn't want to run over someones cat.. |
|
19 Mar 00 - 04:42 PM (#197786) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: tar_heel make no mistake about it!!!it's all about government control.everytime some controversy arises,the pesident(bill lewisky)delivers some message for congressional consideration to act upon............tobacco farmers and companies,will soon be out of business!(there is no way they can continue to operate with all the lawsuits and fines).now it's your gun!!!tomorrow it wil be your home and all you own. wake up,america!!!! |
|
19 Mar 00 - 04:55 PM (#197794) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: The Beanster Chuck, You're kidding, right? |
|
19 Mar 00 - 05:02 PM (#197797) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall I sure hope so. |
|
20 Mar 00 - 07:35 AM (#198000) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,James Smitty, do you keep in touvh with the home planet ? |
|
20 Mar 00 - 06:56 PM (#198298) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall UNCLE!!! |
|
20 Mar 00 - 09:41 PM (#198380) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,The Yank There is no specific U.S. Constitutional right to own guns & those that maintain as much simply refuse to face fact. This issue tends to produce strange behavior: normally intelligent and otherwise rational individuals positively foam at the mouth! The Constitution's wording is specifically "arms" which in the parlance of the day- as well as in modern usage- means weapons of all sorts, including but by no means limited to "fire-arms" or guns [e.g. _Cyclopaedia or, an Universal Dictionary of the Arts and Sciences..._ by Ephraim Chambers, Gent. London, 1752: "ARMS. All Kinds of Weapons, whether for Defence or Offence"]. BR> There are all manner of non-firearm weapons- "switchblade" knives, swords, sword canes, pocket knives with blades over a certain length, 'billy' clubs, saps, etc., etc., etc. - the use, possession, & carrying of which are regulated, restricted, and in many cases prohibited by State and Federal law. Many municipalities also have severe restrictions on possession and/or of firearms of any sort. These regulations and prohibitions have passed the test of constitutionality- or they would have long ago been overturned by the Supreme Court. With these precedents, and the clear wording of the Constitution, should this nonexistant 'right' to own guns ever face a court challenge it would be quickly laid to rest- which is what terrifies the NRA & their disciples- the Emperor has no clothes whatever! and the public is beginning to catch on. This may help to explain the recent spate of NRA sleaze, lies & underhand tactics. |
|
21 Mar 00 - 08:01 AM (#198560) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: bob schwarer The Supreme Court has avoided the issue like poison. |
|
21 Mar 00 - 08:16 AM (#198571) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Midchuck And yet the Supreme Court has found that a Constitutional right to abortion exists, in the absence of a single word in the Constitution about abortion (and I believe in freedom of choice in that area myself, but I'm still amused by the logical inconsistency the Court will indulge in to give orthodox liberals what they want this week). The weakness of our Constitution is that it means what the Supremes say it means this week. But it's better than nothing. Incidentally, I'll accept the argument that the right to bear "arms" means flintlocks and swords and muzzle-loading brass cannon, because that was what the framers of the Constitution were familiar with, and had in mind when it was drafted, if those who argue that theory will accept that, by the same reasoning, "freedom of speech and of the press" means only face-to-face speech and the hard-copy print media, not radio/TV/telephone/internet/etc., since none of them existed then either. Peter. |
|
21 Mar 00 - 09:48 AM (#198617) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,The Yank "The weakness of our Constitution is that it means what the Supremes say it means this week. But it's better than nothing." Think it could just as easily be argued that the ability to interpret the constitiuion is one of its strengths. And the "Supremes" have historically been just as likely to indulge in logical inconsistency to give the orthodox conservatives what they want this week.[No offense intended to Diana Ross]. Don't think you can blame the MONEY=SPEECH decision on the 'orthodox liberals... ;-) |
|
21 Mar 00 - 11:14 AM (#198660) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Fortunato On the subject of the availability of guns, I feel confident that no teenager with a knife or a club or fists is going to walk into my chidren's high school and commit mass murder. Rifles and shotguns and pistols are another matter. The children who shoot their school mates are not the children of criminals. They are the children of the gun owner next door. The hunter, the collector, the sport shooter, or perhaps they are children of the housewife who carries a 357 magnum in her SUV just to protect herself from others like herself. If you have children in school and you're not afraid of the availability of guns then you're not paying attention. regards, Fortunato |
|
21 Mar 00 - 11:23 AM (#198662) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: bob schwarer Good point about the 1st amendment, Midchuck. |
|
21 Mar 00 - 11:40 AM (#198675) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall This feels like Walt Disney's Sorcerers Apprentice with Micky Mouse unable to stop what he started..I'm outa here |
|
21 Mar 00 - 06:48 PM (#198910) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: bob schwarer Likewise |
|
21 Mar 00 - 08:36 PM (#198994) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,flattop One of Jack Handley's Deep Thoughts went something like this: The blind should get guns instead of seeing eye dogs. Dogs are cheaper and when they start shooting, people will get out of the way. Cars too. |
|
21 Mar 00 - 11:18 PM (#199081) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: JedMarum Ok, now the gun supporters have spoken, Kendall, let's start a thread about athletics. |
|
22 Mar 00 - 12:24 PM (#199193) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: bob schwarer Must be a lot of athletic supporters out there. Bob S. |
|
22 Mar 00 - 05:53 PM (#199383) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Kim C Just who are The People? As in the right of The People to peaceably assemble; the right of The People to be secure in their houses and persons? Why is it that when we get to the 2nd Amendment, The People (i.e., you and me) is no longer The People but a Specialized Group of People (i.e., well-regulated militia)? As far as I'm concerned, The People is The People is The People, and that's that. Someone said earlier that the state militia and the national guard aren't the same thing. He's right. They aren't, never have been, never will be. State militia is totally separate from any federal armed force. Some states still maintain a local militia. Bully for them! A friend told me the story of her grandparents who were Jews in Russia during the Revolution. The soldiers barged into their home and beheaded Grandfather while his family watched. I said to her, that's why we have a 2nd Amendment in this country. Also remember, history shows us that the surest way to subjugate a society is to take away their weapons. Hitler's Germany is a prime example. Yes, people die from gunshots. People also die from beatings, stabbings, drug overdoses, and terrible diseases, among countless other things. Why is a gun death more tragic than a cancer death? I got news for you, we are all going to die one day. Getting rid of guns will not eradicate senseless death. Until our current laws can be enforced, and guns are out of the hands of thugs, I'm keeping mine. I think I have the right to a fair fight, after all. ---------------Kim |
|
22 Mar 00 - 06:35 PM (#199421) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Midchuck YEEHAW! Read to 'em from the book, Kim C. "Unarmed free citizen" is an oxymoron. Peter. (If you think I sound like a redneck when I talk to a bunch of liberals, wait until you hear me talking to a bunch of rednecks before you draw a conclusion. Really, there aren't any easy answers....)
|
|
22 Mar 00 - 07:26 PM (#199462) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow The Constitution really helped Amadou Diallo didn't it? Now, if he'd had a gun instead of a wallet that would have saved him wouldn't it?
But I think this is going round in circles. I suggest we take kendall's advice, and can it until the next time some random massacre makes it topical again. |
|
23 Mar 00 - 06:54 AM (#199793) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,flattop So McGrath, you're not willing to deal with Jack Handley's suggestion, in my post above, that eyesight is not a legitimate criteria for restricting deadly weapons. |
|
23 Mar 00 - 07:54 AM (#199802) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: bob schwarer McGrath. You want to disarm the police too? |
|
23 Mar 00 - 08:28 AM (#199812) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Midchuck Judging from recent headlines from NYC, we should arm the general public and disarm the police. We might be safer. Edward Abbey, I think it was, pointed out that the slogan, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is not literally correct. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws and the government will have guns. That's what's really scary. Peter. |
|
24 Mar 00 - 02:00 AM (#200585) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,High and Lonesome Remember, guns don't kill people, children with guns kill people. Or something like that. . . |
|
24 Mar 00 - 07:00 AM (#200614) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,flattop Couldn't we blame the deaths on the people impeding the paths of free flying bullets? |
|
24 Mar 00 - 03:24 PM (#200837) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Jim Krause Lately I've rather been wondering if the whold gun debate thing really isn't a shouting match about guns, but about technology. How much firepower does a person really need? I see no logical reason why a civilian needs a more technologically advanced firearm than a Mauser model 1898 bold action rifle, or a Winchester model 1892 lever action rifle, or a breechloading double barrel shotgun. How many gun owners actually practice at the rifle range? Any deranged serial killer can spray the countryside or city street with a hail of bullets. Might be better if more manufacturers follow Smith & Wesson's example. And all this stuff about the big, bad Government gettin the drop on poor innocent citizens? Well, that big, bad Government is us. That's the way a democratic Rebpulic works. |
|
24 Mar 00 - 03:52 PM (#200855) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton This debate promises to shed more heat than light. The Second Amendment has been misinterpreted. It has to do with the right of a militia to arm when invaded by a foreign country. It doesn't necessarilly permit every citizen to own hand guns or automatic weapons. The notion that only outlaws will have guns is true if you find that they get their guns by stealing them from "honest" folk. Hence, the more private government, gun ownership, the more they will wind up in the hands of outlaws. There is a prevalent distrust of the police, these days. I wonder what would happen if there weren't any policeman? Who would be safe? The "government" is an amorphous enemy these days to many who feel their rights are trampled on. And yet, without this government would anyone have any rights at all? And what is this "government" anyhow? Are they elected representatives by the people? Doesn't that make the people accountable for the actions of the government? This anti-government talk is usually the rhetoric of those who claim states rights over federal decrees. But State governments are governments also. Assuming that governments are inherently corrupt, would you rather have 50 corrupt local governments or one central one? As it is seen, today, in the U.S., gun ownership as a protection is perfectly worthless in extirpating Naziism. Many American Nazis have guns. Who are the outlaws? Is the local right-wing militia your best friend? Just asking questions, here, because I don't have answers. Frank
|
|
24 Mar 00 - 05:26 PM (#200908) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: katlaughing Very good questions, Frank. Thanks! Too often the kind of thinking that the far right militia engenders leads to senesless actions. I think the general conservative public starts to believe all of the fearfilled rhetoric and takes things into their own hands, based on their own perceptions. This week, two little girls, about 9 years old, were out walking with a family dog of one of them. The dog was with them, by the river, no livestock, no other pets around, nobody but them. Out stepped a neighbour, stood on his front step, took aim at the dog and shot it, in front of the little girls. The dog survived but lost an eye. The girls still are having a hard time sleeping, eating, going to school. I fear this kind of person, but that doesn't make me want to go out and buy a gun. kat |
|
24 Mar 00 - 09:56 PM (#201067) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow "You want to disarm the police too?" Well it seems to work pretty well where I live, and in other countries where I'd want to live... But that wasn't what I was suggesting. I was responding to Kim C's story "The soldiers barged into their home and beheaded Grandfather while his family watched. I said to her, that's why we have a 2nd Amendment in this country."
I pointed out that the 2nd Amernment didn't protect Amadou Diallo, and it wouldn't have even if he'd exercised it by carrying a gun. The only difference that would have made would have been that we'd never have heard of him, and his killers would never have even faced trial. |
|
24 Mar 00 - 11:00 PM (#201112) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,tedlo just read the threads on the gun " debate".In many cases I have never read so much convoluted thinking in my life. the gun "debate" will never be solved because tho' some may like to think the 2nd amendment means what they want it to it's written in plain english. Do your research before you jump in with wild statements. You may find that you need to adjust your thinking. tedlo |
|
25 Mar 00 - 05:04 AM (#201200) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: The Shambles I have visited other countries where the police are armed and it does not make me feel safe but very unsafe.
This argument reminds me of the fox-hunting debate. Those who like to dress up, in like company ride around on land that they would not usually be allowed, claim that they not doing this but are controlling foxes. This is as much nonsense as bringing in ancient laws and rulings to support the fact that some people, LIKE guns and don't want them taken away. Those people have to decide if doing what they like is worth the price that everyone has to pay. |
|
25 Mar 00 - 06:38 AM (#201208) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,flattop But if anyone gets guns, shouldn't the blind get them before people with good eyesight, rather than the otherway around. After all, the blind can't can't see if it's government goons from the Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco department kicking in their door or just their paranoid neighbours in a constitutionally sanctioned quest for happiness. |
|
25 Mar 00 - 08:19 AM (#201224) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall I own a gun. I am well trained in the use of it (retired G-man) Now, am I numb enough to think that that little .38 would make the slightest difference if the "Government" wanted to send goons to bother me in any way? Nonsense!! I dont remember the last time a wild animal or a mob tried to invade my house. No out of control indians either...Someone said an unarmed free society is an oxymoron, I'm surprised that there has been so little comment from our GB friends. |
|
18 Apr 00 - 04:32 PM (#213896) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: M. Ted (inactive) I am not sure what the debate here is even about--I don't think it is an issue on the table anywhere(at least anywhere in the States) that all of America's guns be taken away, yet when people get anywhere near a point, that is the point that the seem to allude to-- But, that said, I think it is important to address McGrath's point about violence--America is a very violent place--yes, it is true!!! I don't think that those of you on the other side of the Atlantic really apreciate this--in fact, I know you don't because I talk until I am blue in the face to our European friends and they still don't get the concept about what parts of town to stay away from, and how to walk down the street so that no one messes with you--and what parts of the country it isn't a good idea to try to stroll around and take pictures in-- When I was in Denver last Spring, just after after the Columbine High School incident, there were several other serial killings that were in the news-- Same deal with the Kayla Rowland thing in Michigan--at the same time,there were several other equally horrifying indidents that only made the local papers-- In Big Rapids Mich, four high school students kidnapped a 68 year old disabled veteran, shove him into the trunk of their car, where they either stabbed or shot him(I forget which) and then drove him around and showed him to their friends(none of them bothered to call the police)--They were eventually pulled over for a traffic infraction, and the officers found the man, by this time dead, in the trunk-- Although it frequently involves guns, this violence is not rooted in the availability or legality of guns, and often, the most amazing instances of violence don't involve guns at all-- I can't really say where the violence comes from, but it is there, and seems to be getting worse-- This violence is really the issue, not the Constitution, not the NRA, not what is or is not on TV-- My experience has been when there is a particularly egregious incident of "violence" ther is a great public debate, which people quickly sidetrack to a discussion their favorite running topic, which is one of the above, or maybe "educational reform" or "speed reading" or "school prayer" or some such thing-- Two years later, we end up with gun locks that don't work, federal reading programs that don't work, and much needed tax reform that doesn't work--and so it goes, until another unfortunate gets blown to pieces--
|
|
18 Apr 00 - 06:04 PM (#213939) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall A new study just came up with this..the states with the most gun laws have the fewest gun related deaths. The states with the fewest gun laws have the most gun related deaths. Most laws? Massachusettes..the fewest laws? Louisiana. OK MOses, what do you say to that? Its a common but eroneous belief that prohibition didnt work..actually, it cut comsumption of alcohol by over 90%. Bad side? it created a crime wave like this country had never seen before. |
|
18 Apr 00 - 06:32 PM (#213950) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Sinsull In the immortal words of my beloved Dad and stalwart member of the NRA:"If JFK had been beaten to death with a telephone, would they regulate AT&T?" Actually, I think they did, no?
|
|
18 Apr 00 - 06:40 PM (#213955) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Midchuck "A new study just came up with this..the states with the most gun laws have the fewest gun related deaths. The states with the fewest gun laws have the most gun related deaths. Most laws? Massachusettes..the fewest laws? Louisiana." Are you talking per capita? Vermont is, I believe, the only state in the union with no handgun carry restriction or permit requirement at all, concealed or not. And we have the third lowest per capita rate of violent crime in the country, after the two Dakotas. "OK MOses, what do you say to that? Its a common but eroneous belief that prohibition didnt work..actually, it cut comsumption of alcohol by over 90%." It also made it fashionable to break the law, thus setting the stage for the drug culture. And it made sure that a lot of what was consumed was poison, so I doubt that the percentage of people killed by alcohol went down as much as the consumption rate. Peter. |
|
18 Apr 00 - 08:21 PM (#214016) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall An interesting point which does not change the facts. |
|
18 Apr 00 - 09:27 PM (#214056) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: katlaughing The glamour of violence is portrayed throughout our society through the media, etc. In almost every depiction, guns are included, so...whether the problem is violence or guns, they are inextricably linked, especially in the minds of impressionable children. It used to be mostly the adverts were what influenced people so much, got a pain, take a pill type stuff. Now, IMO, it is more the shows, films, etc. themselves which have pervaded the consciousness of our country, so that we now have children thinking got a problem, blow it away in many cases, with no comprehension of the fatal consequences. |
|
18 Apr 00 - 09:31 PM (#214060) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Midchuck What she said. Peter. |
|
18 Apr 00 - 09:41 PM (#214064) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Mooh Point: the fewest or most number of gun laws does not necessarily mean those laws are intended to control guns, are effective at controlling guns, are enforced, etc. One law in one place may be as effective as several in another place. Therefore what the hell does the number of laws have to do with it? The only law that will ultimately matter in a society that wants not to recognize vengence is the law(s) that outlaws guns for good.Btw, what is a handgun designed for if not to be concealed and for killing people and at short range? They are not a serious hunting weapon and as protection, geez, whatever happened to......oh never mind, this has been flogged to death (as opposed to shot). Peace (and I mean it), Mooh. |
|
18 Apr 00 - 10:10 PM (#214091) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Caitrin Gun control is very important. I think the first step is in gun owners controlling their own guns. My father owns a shotgun. I know how to load it and fire it and take care of it; he's taken me out to the farm to shoot at targets several times. I also know that it is NEVER to be left loaded, it is NEVER pointed at anyone, and if it isn't being fired, the safety is ON. He had to go on a rescue squad call where a woman was loading her husband's gun into a car trunk (they were moving to a new house). The gun had been left ready to fire. When she put it in the trunk, it fired and perforated her chest. If people are going to own guns, they need to control them. |
|
18 Apr 00 - 10:18 PM (#214094) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall maybe an iq test along with that waiting period? |
|
19 Apr 00 - 12:10 AM (#214154) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: M. Ted (inactive) Mooh, How do you propose to outlaw guns? Even those superior intellects in the European Economic Union have not outlawed guns-- Only thing I can figure is that there is a principled objection to the idea that our constitution says that we have a right to bear arms-- My experience has been that, for one reason and another, we have had a lot of reason to use guns here in the US, and so we tend to have more of them than people who have less use--curiously, there has been no "principled" complaint about the possesion and use of weapons in places like Chechnya--has our beloved editor perhaps written an editorial she has neglected to share? At any rate, I think there is a certain amount of bitterness over on the British side owing to the fact that we once took some potshots at a few of their own--sorry bout that-- |
|
19 Apr 00 - 09:13 AM (#214253) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Mooh M.Ted, I live in hope. I just believe that the world would be better without guns. Sorry I don't know what your last paragraph has to do with the issue. I never suggested I had a proposal for banning guns, just that they should be.(I'm really more concerned with handguns and non-hunting weapons to start.) Why not, all sorts of things are disallowed in society, but I'm not so naive as to assume that a ban would be totally successful, and it would take generations for society to adapt. Start now as an individual and maybe in time guns will disappear from common use. We may not ever agree. As for a principled complaint, are you kidding? Point: change (or amend) the damn constitution! Maybe you need guns because you have guns. Peace (without guns), Mooh.
|
|
19 Apr 00 - 09:20 AM (#214254) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.. |
|
19 Apr 00 - 09:26 AM (#214258) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Midchuck "Point: change (or amend) the damn constitution! Maybe you need guns because you have guns." If you can damn the Constitution and mean it, you should go live in a country without a constitution. And the sooner the better. You might eventually change your mind. You can damn the Constitution because it contains a guarantee of free speech. You are taking irresponsible advantage of that guarantee, but you would be upset if it were taken away from you. Yet you feel that the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms should be taken away because a number of people take irresponsible advantage of it. I would ask if you were familiar with the term, "consistency," if I were sure I could spell it. Peter. |
|
19 Apr 00 - 09:39 AM (#214260) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: katlaughing I read something interesting in the paper the other day. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, a really crack shot with a musket could get off two rounds per minute. Hard to imagine the forefathers had the foresight to envision and include the rapid, multi-kills-in-a-mniute of semi-automatic and automatic weapons. MTed, if you are talking about me, I don't hide anything that I have written, op/eds or otherwise and I am not an editor. I have never written on Chechnya because I do not feel qualified. I do not know enough about it. I include my op/ed pieces here, from time to time, because people ask or they are on topic. I was raised like Caits, with guns and a healthy respect for their fatal capacity; sadly, it seems, the majority are not being raised that way today and the issue of gun owners controling their guns is a good one. Personally, I would prefer none, as Mooh has stated. kat |
|
19 Apr 00 - 10:16 AM (#214275) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Enough, Already! Jeez, folks, get over it! THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS CONTAINED IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!! Better spend some time learning English grammar and composition.The courts have confirmed this in a number of decisions over the years dealing with "arms" of which guns are only one type. If you feel the need to justify universal gun ownership, at least find a valid arguement! |
|
19 Apr 00 - 10:18 AM (#214277) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Allan C. I think kat brings up an interesting thought. In many parts of this country, (and I would imagine in others as well,) people who are raised with guns are, for the most part, taught or absorb a real sense of the lethal capablility of them. They also develop a respect for such issues of safety as a matter of course. This is not to say that such learning does not exist elsewhere, but I believe it is not so general in its application.
Kids in West Virginia (where, I am told, there are more guns per capita than anywhere else in the U.S.) grow up in homes where guns are omnipresent. Most absorb the knowledge I have mentioned. Another thing they soon get to know is that there are some things you just don't do because they know that finding themselves on the business end of a gun is a real possibility.
"'Scuse me while I go get my gun" is probably a rather commonly spoken phrase in such areas. And they sell almost as many bullets as they do cigarettes.
As for me, I tend to avoid confrontations in a land where "He took a notion" is a viable defense in a court of law ;-) On the other hand, it should be noted that West Virginia has one of the nation's lowest interpersonal crime rates. I am thinking there is some kind of correlation here.
Personally, I believe in and support the total elimination of handguns and will not argue the point with anyone. But I feel equally as strongly that non-automatic rifles have a place in our world among those who can act responsibly. For my money, all the rest of the firearms should be available only to the armed forces (and I am not really all that sure about that!). We could save a whole lot of grief here if we would all just go back to bows and arrows. |
|
19 Apr 00 - 10:54 AM (#214292) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: M. Ted (inactive) Just a bit convoluted there Kat--not directed at you--simply meant no one had expressed an opinion on the issue of guns in Chechnya, unless you had-- By the way, I think that the majority of gun owners do handle them with the appropriate amount of care--otherwise. we'd all be dead... Peter, Mooh is in no position to change our Constitution, because he is not(how can we phrase this delicately?) a United States Citizen--Technically, he doesn't, therefore, have any of the rights that are afforded to us by the Constitution, and doesn't think much of them, and doesn't think much of us because we take them seriously-- I think that it is rather presumptous and impertinent of him, (and others) to make the assumption that they understand our culture and laws so well as to be able to demand changes of us--but that is just my opinion--
|
|
19 Apr 00 - 11:39 AM (#214319) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Mooh Hey, it isn't personal! Healthy disagreement results in progress in our various lands and governments. This issue is one that makes us different but it doesn't mean I don't "think much of" anyone. My own country has faults, and I do think that law should change with the times, rather than be frozen in time. As a race I think we can do better. Figuratively at least, swords to ploughshares is not a bad idea. Peace, Mooh. |
|
19 Apr 00 - 11:52 AM (#214332) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Midchuck "THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS CONTAINED IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!! " Yes, there is. If you read the wording as it reads on its face rather than tormenting it into the meaning you want, as the U. S. Courts have chosen to do. People who say "get over it" seem usually to be people who want the debate to end right after they've had their say. Keeps them from being argued with. Makes it possible for them to believe they've proved their point. Peter. |
|
19 Apr 00 - 12:46 PM (#214354) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Rick Fielding Hi M.Ted. Now don't shoot me for this (I'd rather swap chords with you than argue politics) but your comment to Mooh: "I think that it is rather presumptous and impertinent of him, (and others) to make the assumption that they understand our culture and laws so well as to be able to demand changes of us--but that is just my opinion--" makes me wonder about something. Lets assume (and this might not be the case here) that someone from another country has read widely, has a strong grasp on political documents, is articulate enough to present cohesive thoughts on a number of subjects not directly related to themselves...well you get the idea. Is that person's opinion not as (or more) valid than someone smack dab in the middle of a situation, with limited understanding of how Govt. works, and perhaps a hair-trigger to boot? (you gotta admit, all countries have lots of those) Just from personal experience, I've found that very few Canadians have a clue about their OWN constitution, can barely name the last 5 Prime Ministers...and some even think that the QUEEN (of all people) has a say in our affairs! I'd be the first to admit that an American (or Ozzie, or Brit) with an education and a bit of study time would know more about my country than the average citizen who may be operating on emotion alone. I especially think that the opinions of an INFORMED observer shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, simply because they aren't a resident. I think for the most part the opinions in this thread are pretty well thought out, and I tend to give them equal credence...whatever country they come from. I even managed to do that in the recent "Canajun" threads! Rick
|
|
19 Apr 00 - 02:03 PM (#214404) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall who is tormenting what? A WELL REGULATED MILITIA...there is no militia, well or poorly regulated.. |
|
19 Apr 00 - 03:20 PM (#214449) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Midchuck who is tormenting what? A WELL REGULATED MILITIA...there is no militia, well or poorly regulated.. From Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition: "Militia: ..... 2. In the United States, all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not already members of the regular armed forces: Members of the National Guard, Organized Reserve Corps (Army and Air), and the Naval and Marine Reserves constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia." So most of us are in it, except those of us who are too old (like me) or the wrong sex. We probably need to work on that definition. Peter. |
|
19 Apr 00 - 03:27 PM (#214454) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Bob S. sure we have a militia. We're it. |
|
19 Apr 00 - 03:36 PM (#214462) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Richard Bridge Well spare a thought for the poor UK farmer who has just been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder for shooting a gang of habitual recidervist youths who burgled his isolated farmhouse in the dead of night. Had he had no gun - he would be dead, I have no doubt, or at least been severely beaten. But he had a gun, so now is in prison for life. |
|
19 Apr 00 - 03:54 PM (#214474) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Ed Pellow Richard Have you actually followed this case in detail? Your comments suggest that you've blindly accepted Daily Mail editorials Ed |
|
19 Apr 00 - 04:17 PM (#214485) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Rick Fielding This has been interesting and courtious, perhaps I'll try a "part two" Rick |
|
19 Apr 00 - 04:19 PM (#214487) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Gary T From a previous post in this thread by Bob Schwarer: "Well regulated" had nothing to do with being under someone's control. It had to do with the person being proficient in what he was doing. I can send you a copy of the manual of arms of the time showing what a "well regulated" soldier or militiaman was expected to do. From a previous post in this thread by yours truly: Smitty's first post and Bob Schwarer's last post conform to the principle I've heard that the "well regulated milita" potentially consists of every citizen. Although the National Guard is sometimes called the Militia, it is not the same thing. It is instead essentially an auxiliary branch of the U.S. Army. The citizen milita mentioned in the 2nd amendment is not a regular, organized, ongoing body--it is everyday folks equipped to fight tyranny if and when necessary. Note that the amendment does not say that one must be an official member of the militia in order to claim the right to bear arms, it merely mentions that a free state needs the capability to have one--in other words, the citizens must be capable of effectively resisting an oppressive government. Many seem to think that the "well regulated militia" phrase restricts the second amendment's rights to certain organized groups. That is simply not what it says. If the constitution's writers had wanted to have such limits, they were more than capable of making that clear and unambiguous. While it's unfortunate that the definition of the phrase "well regulated", in this context, has become archaic, the language is plain enough in not requiring official membership in any organization in order to avail oneself of the stated right. |
|
19 Apr 00 - 04:48 PM (#214505) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall When do I get my bazooka? |
|
19 Apr 00 - 04:54 PM (#214514) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,gargoyle kendall - when do you shut up? rick fielding - why not actually start a new thread? |
|
19 Apr 00 - 05:34 PM (#214534) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Caitrin A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The second amendment does not say a well-regulated militiaman is necessary to the security of a free state. It says a well regulated militia is necessary. A militia is an organized body. I think the language is perfectly clear too, Gary. |
|
19 Apr 00 - 05:48 PM (#214544) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: M. Ted (inactive) "Point: change (or amend) the damn constitution!" Is a demand--not a point from debate-- Well said, Gary T--I am a legal wonk, among other things, and I have spend many happy hours pouring over discussion of the principles involved here--I think that a real discussion of the issue can only begin when people understand the ideas that you have expressed-- McGrath made a mocking sort of inquiry as to whether "Common Sense" was provided for in the constitution, which is sort of amusing, because the fundamental principles were actually put forward in Thomas Paine's pamphlet, entitled "Common Sense" printed in that wonderful year, 1776. The issue of "Gun Control" is not about guns, or arms, at all, it is about the degree of control that we should allow any government to have over our lives. If you do not address this question, and it's implications, as reflected in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, you are not really in the debate at all. Furthermore, if you don't understand this question, you haven't got a clue to what America is about-- So check out Tom Paine--he is the font from whence this all springs(or at least he said it best) (Kelida, you should read him--I think you may be related!)Common Sense |
|
19 Apr 00 - 07:06 PM (#214597) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Gary T Caitrin, the militia is obviously made up individual militiamen, who are the people mentioned in the amendment's second phrase. In the definition Midchuck shared with us about 10 posts up, you can see that the militia in question is an unorganized body, not an organized one. It still DOES NOT say that you ONLY get to bear arms on the CONDITION that you're in some militia. It says you get to bear them BECAUSE we NEED a militia, said militia being essentially every citizen, if and when needed. To paraphrase it in modern language: Since having every citizen ready to put up a good fight is necessary to protect our country's security and freedom, the right... Note how compactly the original language states the above. Good writing. Unfortunately, "well regulated" gets misinterpreted as meaning "carefully controlled and organized", and "militia" gets misinterpreted as "National Guard". When one considers the amendment in the context of the political climate and language usage of the time when it was written, it becomes a l-o-n-g stretch, and an ungrammatical one, to read it as meaning "Only within an organized militia..." |
|
19 Apr 00 - 07:19 PM (#214607) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: JedMarum I am sure that most Americans agree that the consitution provides them the right to bear arms, and that means to them they have a right to own fire-arms. I am equally sure that any significant attempt to prohibit the ownership of firearms, would result very quickly in mass civil disobedience, major bloodshed, and most likely a second US Civil War. (I don't condone this, but I would expect it). I can't see why US citizens need automtic weapons, but I understand the arguement that says the constitution allows for each citizen to arm himself, not for hunting, not for sport, but for self protection including for self protection from unlawful military organizations that may be threatening them. The courts have upheld the major components of these arguements. Change the consitution? It's possible ... but unlikely since ownership is soo pervasive, and support for the right so widespread? And why should all this take place?? Why should we take guns away from a huge protion of our society? Why should we punish all because a few are irresponsible, and a few more are willfull destroyers of life?
|
|
20 Apr 00 - 05:33 PM (#215206) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Didn't know that the Creator supports the NRA through "inalienable rights". Maybe that's why they hired Charlton Heston. :) Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. :) Frank |
|
20 Apr 00 - 05:40 PM (#215209) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Mbo Wow, you folks sure know a lot about the Constitution! All I know is "We the people"! Guess I know more about music or something... --Mbo |
|
20 Apr 00 - 06:20 PM (#215233) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Gary T Well, gosh, Mbo, you just need to find a music-related web site. (VBG) |
|
20 Apr 00 - 06:36 PM (#215244) Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Hey GAGoyle, I wondered if you were ever coming out from under your rock again! I missed you |