|
11 May 06 - 08:37 AM (#1737936) Subject: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: tarheel A 1764 view on gun control, and it sounds a whole lot like my view on gun control. "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of a similar nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most importantof the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty- so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator- and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative, but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." -Cesare Beccaria, 1764 ( I don't have a link for this. It's from SGN Volume 60, Issue 8, 2006, page 108) tarheel |
|
11 May 06 - 08:50 AM (#1737945) Subject: RE: BS: a 2006 view of gun control From: freda underhill A 2006 view of gun control.. On Friday 28 of April this year ten years passed since 35 people died and 19 people were wounded when Martin Bryant used a military-style rifle to shoot people attending the historic Port Arthur prison centre in Tasmania. Hundreds of other Australians had died in previous gun massacres; particularly in 1987 when a total of 32 died in six gun massacres - indeed, next year will mark the 20th anniversary of that worst year for gun masacres in Australia's history; the year of Melbourne's Hoddle Street and Queen Street gun massacres, the year that four teenage women were shot dead with a legally owned shotgun in the Sydney suburb of Pymble. But numbers are just numbers so let's briefly remind ourselves what it means to be a gun victim. Ten years ago single mother Carolyn Loughton from Ferntree Gully in Victoria was dining with her 15 year old daughter Sarah at Port Arthur's Broad Arrow cafe when Bryant started shooting. The pair tried to escape from the cafe through a door, but it was locked. As Bryant kept killing people Carolyn threw herself over her daughter in a desperate bid to save her; but she failed and in turn received a terrible shoulder wound herself. Carolyn had to seek financial help to ensure that Sarah's grave had a headstone. Her bullet wound required a decade of expensive medical treatment which left Carolyn poor, jobless and heartbroken. And can anyone forget the misery of Walter Mikac whose wife and two daughters were shot dead by Bryant. Can you imagine a man who will hunt down a three year old and a six year old girl and fire a high powered bullet at close range into each of their bodies? Well, we should never forget that that is exactly what one gun owner did. Was this unique? Of course not; almost exactly three months previously in the Queensland suburb of Hillcrest 32 year old gun enthusiast Peter May shot dead his own six year old and eleven year old daughters, once again at close range with a high powered rifle. Then there was the 1990 case of Perth gun enthusiast Don Clemensha who shot dead his daughters, 14 year old Catherina and 15 year old Deanna. This list of gun loving youngish men shooting younger women seems endless. Normal (meaning thoughtful and concerned with humanity) people would evaluate all this gun killing with the fact that guns seem to be designed to kill and that they are fundamentally different to say tennis racquets or cricket bats. The gun lobby tell us otherwise. They say that guns are sporting implements and that shooters should not be picked-on for a few bad-eggs. This argument may convince some if there were only one or two bad-eggs every century but sadly there are far too many selfish, callous, heartless, unstable and opportunist gun owners around for the bad-egg theory to hold water. The Port Arthur gun massacre finally forced Australian politicians to realise that the gun control movement was right, that shooters could not adequately control themselves and that the gun lobby had fooled them for decades with their bad-egg theory. The improved gun laws which were enacted between 1988 and 1998 have surely been responsible for the fact that the number of gun deaths per year have been remarkably lowered. Prior to 1988 about 700 Australians died each year from gun wounds. In the mid 2000's that figure has been at least halved. Thus now each year about 400 fewer Australians die from guns. The gun lobby does not tell you this but it does mean that those who died at Port Arthur did not die in vain. |
|
11 May 06 - 08:53 AM (#1737952) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Bobert Ummmmmm, maybe you'd like to enlighten us as to the percentage of hand guns to rifles in 1784 compared to that percentage today... |
|
11 May 06 - 09:14 AM (#1737957) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Amos He was also a strong opponent of the death penalty. "The principles to which Beccaria appealed were Reason, a contractarian understanding of the state, and, above all, the principle of utility, or of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Beccaria had elaborated this original principle in conjunction with Pietro Verri, and greatly influenced Jeremy Bentham to develop it into the full-scale doctrine of utilitarianism. Apart from condemning the death penalty (on two grounds: first, because the state does not possess the right to take lives; and secondly, because capital punishment is neither a useful nor a necessary form of punishment), Beccaria developed in his treatise a number of innovative and influential principles: punishment had a preventive, not a retributive, function; punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed; the certainty of punishment, not its severity, would achieve the preventive effect; procedures of criminal convictions should be public; and finally, in order to be effective, punishment should be prompt." |
|
11 May 06 - 09:22 AM (#1737961) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Grab A 1764 view of gun technology. Breech-loaders existed, but didn't work and were merely an expensive novelty. Rifling also existed, but was so difficult (and therefore expensive) that rifles weren't in common use for another hundred years. Muskets and pistols were therefore the only common guns available. Muskets had an accurate range of 100m. Pistols weren't accurate much further than a few yards. The percussion cap did not exist - all guns required manual loading of powder, wadding and shot, and used the flintlock to ignite the powder. Rate of fire for well-trained soldiers would approach 4 shots per minute, although a typical soldier would more likely manage 3. Pistols were strictly a fire-and-forget alternative to using a sword, since by the time an enemy was close enough to shoot with a pistol, they were practically within sword range. A 1764 view of technology available for licensing, doctors assessing applicants' mental state, ensuring that guns are only bought by responsible adults, etc. None existed. Graham. |
|
11 May 06 - 09:24 AM (#1737962) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Bee-dubya-ell In 1784 it took about fifteen seconds for a good marksman to fire a single round, reload, and fire again. In 2006 it takes about fifteen seconds for a whacko with an assault rifle to spray a hundred rounds into a crowded restaurant. |
|
11 May 06 - 09:28 AM (#1737964) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: freda underhill from Gun Control Australia.. the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that the total number of gun deaths in Australia for year 2003, was 290. This figure shows that there has been a great reduction in yearly gun deaths since governments started to introduce stricter gun laws a decade and a half ago. Here is the 2003 breakdown of gun deaths. By Category: Accident 40 Suicide 193 Homicide 54 Legal etc. 3 By State: New South Wales 97 Victoria 50 Queensland 75 South Australia 17 Western Australia 28 Tasmania 15 NT and ACT 8 The total gun death figure of 290 compares most favourably with the figures of the 1970's and 1980's when 700 was a typical approx. figure. Thus we are witnessing the fact that because of the steady increase in gun controls over 400 fewer Australian die from gun wounds each year compared with two decades ago. We should all jump for joy with this improvement but the gun lobby seems to us to find the lower figures distasteful. There are a number of reasons for this and perhaps they should be made public. GCA was represented at a recent criminology conference and the representatives of the Sporting Shooters Association could find few words to praise the success of our gun laws, indeed, their lecture presentation appeared to concentrate on how unsuccessful our gun laws were. |
|
11 May 06 - 09:31 AM (#1737967) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: beardedbruce and a guy with a bomb could kill hundreds- BUT Bombs and Assault rifles ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL! Can you address the points brought up by the first post? "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of a similar nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most importantof the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty- so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator- and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. " In many cases in recent times, the presence of ARMED citizens would have stopped the killing at an earlier point ( fewer killed) than was possible with a disarmed citizenry. |
|
11 May 06 - 09:41 AM (#1737975) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Grab I don't mind people owning guns. I also don't mind people owning cars. Both are potentially deadly weapons. But I'm not allowed to buy a car and drive it away until the salesman has seen that I'm licensed to drive and that I have insurance. In addition, my ownership of the car is registered with the government. And the car contains features to ensure that it can't easily be driven without my permission. Being licensed to drive requires that I've reached an age where I'm considered old enough to cope with the responsibilities. It also requires that I've spent some considerable time learning how to operate a car safely, and that I've demonstrated by ability to operate a car safely to an independent third party, under real-world conditions in an environment full of other drivers. Furthermore, if a doctor decides that I'm physically or mentally unfit to hold a driving license, they can have it removed from me. If I go on the road without a license, I can be fined and/or jailed. Having insurance ensures that if I cause death, injury or property damage by using my car, an insurance company will pay out the full value of any damages caused, instead of reparations being limited by my personal bank balance. If I go on the road without insurance, I can be fined and/or jailed. In addition, the car is registered. If this car is seen being driven in an unsafe manner, the police don't need to catch me - they can record my license plate number, consider me personally responsible and wait outside my house to arrest me, unless I can prove someone else was using the car. This is confirmed by immobilisers and keys which provide further evidence that the person behind the wheel had my keys. When gun owners are required to carry out ALL the above, I'll consider them no more dangerous than cars. Until then, I consider the public use and ownership of guns to be at least as dangerous as putting an untrained 14-year-old in a sports car and setting them loose in rush hour on the freeway. Graham. |
|
11 May 06 - 10:01 AM (#1737989) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: GUEST,DB Here in the UK we now seem to have a culture of 'binge-drinking' - where many (mainly young) people spend their evenings, especially at weekends, getting as drunk as possible. These drunks spread mayhem in the centres of our towns and cities - and beyond. Huge amounts of police time and man-power is spent dealing with violent and anti-social behaviour. The trouble often spreads to hospital casualty departments where staff are often assaulted. Just imagine the slaughter that would result if these morons were allowed to carry firearms !!! |
|
11 May 06 - 10:13 AM (#1737993) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Paul Burke Why are so many Americans so childishly hung up on things that go bang bang? Don't you grow out of it like normal adults? |
|
11 May 06 - 10:29 AM (#1738000) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Dave (the ancient mariner) On the other hand, knives and swords (the 1764 version of a handgun) were responsible for the silent murder and maiming of how many? |
|
11 May 06 - 11:10 AM (#1738024) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Stilly River Sage Perhaps tarheel would like to arm high school students to protect themselves in case other high school students plan an assault on the school. It makes as much sense [not!] as guns being available in any other portion of society in general. SRS |
|
11 May 06 - 11:44 AM (#1738068) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Grab Thanks for the reminder, DB. It's also illegal (punishable by loss of license for several years in the UK) to drink and drive. If the US had similar laws for drinking and gun use, maybe they wouldn't have so many cases of people getting shot by accident in hunting season. After the first few idiots are arrested for it and have their guns taken away, any others tempted to do the same might get the message. It's no more an accident than running down some kid whilst doing 70 in a school zone is an accident, and it deserves the same penalties. Graham. |
|
11 May 06 - 01:17 PM (#1738141) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Dave (the ancient mariner) We should have a law banning stupidity too! but somehow it will never get enforced. |
|
11 May 06 - 03:09 PM (#1738259) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Amos Hard to imagine how you'd select a jury! A |
|
11 May 06 - 03:12 PM (#1738262) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: beardedbruce Amos- A jury of peers- for stupidity? Seems easily done... |
|
11 May 06 - 03:30 PM (#1738285) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Stilly River Sage That would be the blind leading the blind, wouldn't it? |
|
11 May 06 - 03:49 PM (#1738314) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Amos No -- you don't impanel criminals in a jury trial. You're supposed to get INNOCENT peers. A |
|
11 May 06 - 06:21 PM (#1738421) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Dave (the ancient mariner) "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -- Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography Apparently even the Mahatma was against gun control... |
|
11 May 06 - 06:43 PM (#1738443) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Bill D From today's Washington Post seems like mental instability didn't prevent this kid from getting ahold of various guns and killing one officer and wounding two others. "When Fairfax County police entered the townhouse where Michael Kennedy lived with his family, just hours after the 18-year-old had engaged in a fierce gun battle with police, they found a loaded 12-gauge shotgun leaning in a corner. Standing in another hallway, a .30-caliber rifle. In another corner was a .22-caliber hunting rifle. In all, police found nine guns strewed about the empty Centreville home, unlocked, along with boxes and satchels of ammunition, six pellet guns, several hunting knives and a bayonet on a bedroom nightstand, according to a search warrant unsealed yesterday. Investigators have not traced the ownership of the seven guns Kennedy took with him to the Sully District police station parking lot, including an AK-47-style assault rifle and a high-powered hunting rifle." Over & over & over....you **cannot** prevent people with problem from doing this when guns are so easily available. Michael Kennedy brought two rifles and five pistols to the police station. (AP) Photos Officer Down An 18-year-old gunman opened fire outside a Fairfax County police station, killing one officer, injuring two others, and wounding a civilian. Graphic Events Leading to Police Station Shooting Michael W. Kennedy, 18, fired more than 70 rounds at Fairfax County police officers Monday, killing one and wounding two others. He was armed with an AK-47-style weapon, a high-powered hunting rifle, five handguns and an "extensive" amount of ammunition, according to police. Chantilly's Serenity Shattered Fairfax Killer Had Fled Psychiatric Center Gunman's Final Days:A Carjacking and a Descent Into Delusion Dedicated Detective Remembered Also for Deep Faith Officer Fatally Shot Outside Police Station Chantilly's Serenity Shattered More Stories Nine Guns Found Guns removed from Michael Kennedy's home hours after he opened fire on the Sully District police station: 1) Harrington & Richardson .45-caliber Huntsman 2) Savage Arms .22-caliber Hornet, Model 340 Series E with scope 3) .45-caliber black powder musket 4) .22-caliber Chipmunk rifle 5) Connecticut Valley Arms .45-caliber black powder muzzle-loader 6) Colt 9mm LW with one round in chamber Mossburg 12-gauge shotgun loaded with three slugs 7) .30-caliber M1 carbine 8) Marlin-Glenfield Model 60 .22-caliber long rifle SOURCE: Fairfax County Police Blog The Washington Post's Richmond bureau blogs on legislative tidbits, transition speculation and political news nuggets. The Richmond Report » Virginia Politics Full Coverage Who's Blogging? Read what bloggers are saying about this article. Democratic Senators Represent More Americans - BlogHoster Fairfax County Blog from washingtonpost.com - News, Events, Communities and Sports DCist Full List of Blogs (10 links) » Most Blogged About Articles On washingtonpost.com | On the web Save & Share Tag This Article Saving options After pulling a stolen van into the lot, Kennedy first critically wounded Michael E. Garbarino, 53, sitting in his cruiser, then turned and fired at Detective Vicky O. Armel, 40, fatally wounding her as she emerged from the station and returned fire, police said. More than 150 rounds were exchanged between Kennedy and four officers, including Armel. |
|
11 May 06 - 07:48 PM (#1738489) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Barry Finn In 1764 many hunted game (game?) for survival. If the technology didn't advance there would probably be alot of buffalo swimming in our waters & alot more whales roaming our prairies, thank fully that we had some sort of control other wise we'd probably be extinct. If you hunt, prove that it is to supplement your diet or a wish to lower your food bill other wise you have no reason to hunt, it's not a sport unless you can shoot & release, unharmed. Prove that your life is in danger& you need to own or carry a weapon & pay to have a law officer check that you have it, yearly & if it's gone lost or stolen you can pay dearly. If it's foud to be used in a crime be prepared to serve as much time as those guilty of the actual crime & pay for any your part of the fines, damages or the casts of a civil suit against you. If your gun is involved in a death be willing to offer up your first born to the family that lost their loved one. Barry |
|
11 May 06 - 07:53 PM (#1738494) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Barry Finn GEE, I'm glad I don't own a gun, some one would take it from me & shoot me for not proof reading my above post. Barry |
|
11 May 06 - 08:42 PM (#1738519) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: GUEST,saulgoldie If there is no gun present, then no one can kill another with a gun. It is that simple. In the mean time, a total ban (here in the US, for sure) is unlikely. Therefore, we should at LEAST make sure we are not selling guns to nutjobs or criminals by means of a simple background check. Legitimate gun owners have nothing to fear from these checks. (Curiously, this is an argument that is often made about wiretaps and other privacy invasions. If you are doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear.) And we should make sure, too, that all gun owners are fully competent in gun safety. I like Grab's comparison above to automobile licensing. Any comparison of today against another era is invalid unless we consider the profound differences between the two time frames. Today is nothing like 1764 in too many ways to list. The accuracy of the guns and rapidity of reloading is but one example. Their place in the world is another. Our living patterns and lifestyles are yet another. And today we have well-armed professional gun carriers to protect us. And finally, refer back to my thread thread.cfm?threadid=81708&messages=125 of some months back that when we effectively treat the symptoms of a sick society, the necessity of protecting ourselves from other members of society goes away. A society in wwith more gun ownership is one in which more people will die from gunfire. Hopefully, we have advanced enough to realize that. Sadly, like so many other failures of human enlightenment, it appears that we have not. |
|
11 May 06 - 11:52 PM (#1738641) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: The Fooles Troupe "We should have a law banning stupidity too! but somehow it will never get enforced. " Laws are passed by politicans. They are not immune to stupidity. |
|
12 May 06 - 12:05 AM (#1738652) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: The Fooles Troupe In Brisbane, not far up the road from me, a few suburbs away, the first guy in Queensland has been charged under the new Anti-Terrorism Laws for possessing 50 Kg of blasting gel. Several containers of the stuff were packed with nails, etc. He is a 40 year old who lives with his mother, and is a teacher at the local school. He allegedly 'has an ASIO certification as he worked at the airport for a while'... ??? :-) The stuff was allegedly for making a TV comercial... Funny how all the TV coverage managed to focus closely on the book about 'Osama Bin Laden' tossed casually on the top of the pile of junk the police had carried out of the house and dumped on teh footpath.... :-) |
|
12 May 06 - 05:24 AM (#1738808) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Wilfried Schaum Beccaria's thoughts are still valid today. No citizen over here can defend himself against an armed attack. Anybody who wants a gun can obtain it illegally - you only have to know the right places where to ask. In Switzerland they have the concept of a nation in arms. Every young man having served his "boot school" in the army takes his rifle with him and keeps it at home in a cupboard for further use during training programs; you often find three generations of rifles in a house. But you never hear of crimes committed with such weapons. And never forget: Weapons are tools and must be handled with responsibility - but they still stay tools. The wish to kill and maim doesn't come out of a weaponry, it comes out of the heart of man. |
|
12 May 06 - 06:45 AM (#1738848) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Paul Burke Never? What about Corinne Rey-Bellet? |
|
12 May 06 - 08:45 AM (#1738931) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Grab Every young man having served his "boot school" in the army takes his rifle with him and keeps it at home in a cupboard for further use during training programs So we've found that in Switzerland, before you get a permit to own a gun:- 1) You must be over a fixed age. 2) You must have completed a *very* serious training course, with a huge amount of practical training and verification by instructors that you're safe to own a gun. 3) After all that training, you're registered as owning a gun. (A quick search shows that you're not allowed to sell a gun in Switzerland without checking that the buyer has a permit.) OK, we're still missing a doctor removing your permission to own a gun if you're suffering from mental illness, and there's no insurance, so we're not quite there yet. But that's still a damn sight more than is required in any state in the US. Checking Wikipedia, I also note that it's illegal to carry guns in public in Switzerland unless you've got a permit to do so (and those permits are only usually issued to soldiers and security staff). Automatic weapons are banned outright. And another note on the subject from a BBC article about Rey-Bellet's killing: "It's very common to hear women tell how their husbands remind them they have a gun in moments of tension," says Brigitte Schnegg, professor of gender politics at Berne University. "They'll say: 'If you don't do what I want, don't forget I've got my gun upstairs.'" Graham. |
|
12 May 06 - 08:55 AM (#1738939) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: beardedbruce The Gun Control Act of 1968 (also known as GCA or GCA68, and codified as Chapter 44 of Title 18, United States Code) is a federal law in the United States that broadly regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. ... Prohibited Persons The original GCA prohibits firearms purchase and ownership by certain broad categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety. However, this list was in contradiction between the House and the Senate versions of the bill, and led to great confusion. This list was later augmented, modified, and clarified in the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. The 1986 list is: Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year. Anyone who is a fugitive from justice. Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution. Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United states or an alien admitted to the United states under a nonimmigrant visa. Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions. Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her citizenship. Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (See the Lautenberg Amendment.) A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 created a national background check system to prevent firearms sales to such "prohibited persons." |
|
12 May 06 - 11:17 AM (#1739036) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Bill D there are jaywalking laws too. All they accomplish is to have a formal finger-pointing rule when something bad happens. You want to PREVENT most problems, you have to make it harder to break the law. |
|
12 May 06 - 03:13 PM (#1739249) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: beardedbruce Since it is acknowledged that "the pen is mightier than the sword", I will have to presume that those here seeking licensing and restrictions on firearm ownership will agree to equal licensing, education requirements, control, and punishment for the so-called freedom of "speech". And freedom of "Religion". FAR more people have been hurt and killed by THOSE than by the use of firearms... |
|
12 May 06 - 03:16 PM (#1739254) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: beardedbruce During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered. On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment II 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. . |
|
12 May 06 - 07:16 PM (#1739396) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Bill D well...THAT sure convinces me! Wow...I had never read THAT before! *wondering if they thought that every citizen was automatically in the Militia....we sure don't now* now, taking my tongue out of my cheek, let me say that your post of 3:13 has so many slippery pieces it's hard to know where to start. but if we ever fight a duel, you may use a pen. The rest is pure fallacious equivocation...expression & speech are not inherently dangerous and designed to injure & kill. Same logic applies to autos, elevators, ice skating and trampolines. Guns are not 'needed' for the average person. They can be regulated for hunting, but handguns and others are superfluous for most purposes.. But, we have had this discussion...why am I typing this? |
|
12 May 06 - 08:45 PM (#1739480) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Bobert Lets also keep in mind that the language in the 2 nd ammendment regardling the right to bear arms was tied to the right to arganize a militia... In 1764 that meant takin' up arms against the Brits should they come back fir another round... It didn't mean an 1`8 year old kid owning an assault rifle that puts out so much fire power that had the colonisty had such a weapon in 1776 then the war would have lasted a week or two... I mean, lets get half friggin' real here... Bobert |
|
12 May 06 - 10:45 PM (#1739544) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Dave (the ancient mariner) I am an archer and a gun owner (pistol and rifle and shotgun)but I cannot legally own and use a crossbow in my province (even for target shooting) When was the last time anyone robbed a bank or shot up a school using a crossbow? Well enough dickheads here managed to persuade the authorities that someone might shoot their wife or rob a bank with one so they were banned here....Makes a lot of sense since these people are stupid (see my above posts on stupidity) We have access to lathes drills and the best steel available on any market, most handymen could manufacture a serviceable gun anywhere in Canada and the USA in a few hours. The Pathans make them on foot operated lathes. In Peshawar you can buy a decent copy of most military rifles from Lee Enfields to AK 47's. Banning guns is like shutting the barn door after all the animals have left the building. Enough said. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
13 May 06 - 01:20 AM (#1739600) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Big Al Whittle well no its not. if you've never been to the place in your mind where you would self harm, or hurt anybody else out of sheer thoughtlessness, or because you were young, dumb and immature and generally socially isolated - you have had a remarkably sheltered life. gun control, just removes the quick fix for a lot of people who don't know the right people, haven't got a footlathe, haven't had a career in the Swiss military. |
|
13 May 06 - 11:06 AM (#1739829) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Dave (the ancient mariner) People who wish to commit suicide will do so regardless of the availability of firearms... |
|
13 May 06 - 11:12 AM (#1739837) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Bill D Dave...I doubt there is one kid in the tenements of Washington DC or Los Angeles who could make a handgun on a lathe. |
|
13 May 06 - 01:56 PM (#1739988) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Bill, you are probably right; but they can (and do) fashion functional primitive single shot pistols out of scrap metal and auto parts. |
|
13 May 06 - 03:20 PM (#1740069) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: GUEST,robomatic It seems to me that a logical consequence to the comments of Beccaria and of forum participant Grab is that high schools should provide a thorough course in gun mechanics, maintenance, and proper use. |
|
13 May 06 - 03:58 PM (#1740093) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Grab Robomatic, that'd actually suit me just fine. A damn good course of brainwashing in what you should and shouldn't do (which is what most training amounts to, to be perfectly honest) would suit me down to the ground. And all the other conditions above, obviously. In case you got me wrong from what I said earlier, I'm pro gun control, but I'm also pro gun ownership - I don't see why people shouldn't have them. I just don't want every untrained whacko in the world getting hold of an AK47 on a whim, thanks all the same. :-) 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. Bruce, the key word here which you've missed is "militia". Do you know what a militia is? It basically amounts to every abled-bodied man in your country being a reservist and being called up to fight if your country goes to war. Since the US couldn't fund a standing army at that time (bcos there was no government in place), ad-hoc defense against external attacks by local militia was the only solution. But you're not in a militia today, so you're not in a position to use that justification. Even if you were, you'd be screwed because hunting rifles are sod all use against modern artillery, tanks and air support. So the Second Amendment is about as relevant today as the Jewish rules about not eating pork (which made sense when pigs were the local garbage disposal). Just because someone set some rules over 200 years ago which made sense at the time, I can't see how anyone could reasonably say that those rules should still be applied when the conditions to make them valid haven't existed for over a century. Graham. PS. I like the irony that the US constitution specifically provides for the use of militia - ie. people in groups without formal organisation but with guns, defending their country against external invaders - but the US is still imprisoning without trial over 500 people who did the same thing in their country. Makes you think, especially in light of the Seventh Amendment. |
|
14 May 06 - 04:55 AM (#1740389) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Bunnahabhain And the Superpower of the time had a prison colony running on a far away island. True, the prisoners had had a fair a trial as you could expect at the time, and were actually subjects of the British crown, rather than forigners* Botany Bay, 1788. ( ie Australia) *Forigners fighting the British, and those most serious of criminals, ie those stealing more than 6 sheep wouldn't be transported, just hung where they were... |
|
14 May 06 - 11:46 AM (#1740530) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: GUEST, The Banjoest Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 13 May 06 - 01:56 PM Bill, you are probably right; but they can (and do) fashion functional primitive single shot pistols out of scrap metal and auto parts. Yep, I guess some people have forgotten about the "Zip Gun" and the "Pipe Shotgun." |
|
14 May 06 - 04:32 PM (#1740718) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: beardedbruce "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, " At the time, the militia consisted of all adult males. So, you will all give up the right to peaceably assemble, as well? Have any of you ever read the debates by the founding fathers? Or what THEY thought the Bill of Rights meant? |
|
14 May 06 - 06:36 PM (#1740811) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Grab BB, to repeat what I said earlier, why do you think that every single decision made by a bunch of guys over 200 years ago is still relevant today? The Founding Fathers of America were great men. They looked at the state of the current laws binding them, and had the strength of mind to say, "Why the hell should we do it that way? None of that crap makes any sense here and now." So they sat down and worked out what they needed - at that time, in that political climate, with that distribution of people across the US, and with the money they had in the government at that time. And for that time, that political climate, etc etc, they did a damn good job. But times change. Some things are universals and will make sense in any situation ("life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", or "liberte, egalite, fraternite", or however you choose to phrase it). But some things depend on the situations at that time, and may need modification to fit the current situation, or may not apply at all. If you want an absolute classic example, check the Seventh Amendment, and note the "$20" clause in it. At the time, $20 was a *lot* of money. The law now states that cases involving less than $1500 will be settled in the small claims court. In other words, smart people have looked at the Seventh Amendment, decided that its initial definition was no longer valid, and modified it to suit the conditions of the day. And unless I'm very much mistaken, this Amendment was modified without you having to give up the right to peacably assemble or anything else. In other words, changing *one* law because it doesn't apply today, does *not* require every other law to be revoked. I also note that you're not in a militia. At the time, the militia consisted of all adult males willing to fight (not *all* adult males). No militia exists in the US today - the closest you get is the National Guard. Are you in the National Guard? If so, you might have some justification, but the other 99% of the US who aren't can't say the same. So let's see where we are... - I've been through the reasoning behind that Amendment. - I've shown that the reasons it was put in place don't apply today. - I've shown that even if it did apply, you'd need to be in the modern equivalent of the militia (National Guard) to have a hope of it being relevant to you. - I've given you an example of an Amendment which isn't relevant today in its original form. - I've given you an example of an Amendment that's been modified as lawmakers discovered that it had ceased to be relevant. - I've made the logical step that if one Amendment can be found to be inapplicable today and modified, then this one could be too. So I've given you my reasoning, step by step, and shown how I don't believe other positions are justifiable. Not to shit on your parade, but if you really want to discuss this then you're going to need to do the same, and you're going to have to do a damn sight better than just straw men like "giving up your right to peacably assemble". Your move. Graham. |
|
14 May 06 - 09:40 PM (#1740827) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Bill D " the "Zip Gun" and the "Pipe Shotgun." forgotten? The kids who live a few miles from me would laugh you out of town if you showed them one. If you deprive them of the fancy 'toys' they can buy on the street, they might 'try' to make a zip gun at some point...but ask the cops whether they would rather deal with homemade gadgets or Berettas and AK-47s. Right now, the preferred method of settling a simple argument in some areas is to shoot the other guy. Fist fight? Outdated! (I've seen the interviews where they TELL you this!) Having easy access to guns makes every punk think he can do stuff he would never consider otherwise. They do it to each other, and they do it to shopkeepers, and they do it to random strangers, just to brag they did it. Sorry, but your 'right' to own a wide assortment of working firearms infringes on MY right to a modicum of safety when I do out on the street. |
|
14 May 06 - 10:15 PM (#1740850) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Ebbie Bearded Bruce, I have a question- sincerely meant. I could look it up - and I will, if I don't get an answer- I understand that the 'colonies' were not at all in total agreement with the need or desirability of revolution. Eventually many of them, as you know, left for Canada or for England, but most of them did not leave early on. My question; If the militia concept was in place, what about the adult males who did NOT agree with revolution? I gather that many people just kind of hunkered down and hoped revolt would go away. |
|
15 May 06 - 10:14 AM (#1740911) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: beardedbruce Grab, MY point is that if you consider the 2nd amendment to be invalid, because of a change in the society, HOW can you object if someone considers the 1st, or other amendment, as invalid? Free speech? OK when you could only address a crowd, but with the internet... FAR too dangerous. "So let's see where we are... - I've been through the reasoning behind that Amendment. - I've shown that the reasons it was put in place don't apply today." Which I, for one DO NOT agree with. "- I've shown that even if it did apply, you'd need to be in the modern equivalent of the militia (National Guard) to have a hope of it being relevant to you." NOT shown- the phrase "the right of the people" is STILL there. "- I've given you an example of an Amendment which isn't relevant today in its original form." - I've given you an example of an Amendment that's been modified as lawmakers discovered that it had ceased to be relevant." The VALUE has been changed, due to inflation, but the PRINCIPAL has not. - I've made the logical step that if one Amendment can be found to be inapplicable today and modified, then this one could be too." Which is my problem- WHY should YOU have freedom of speech if there are those who might consider it to be a danger??????? You would alter the laws YOU do not like, but hold as absolutes the ones that YOU do like- REGARDLESS of others opinions. |
|
15 May 06 - 10:27 AM (#1740922) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: beardedbruce Ebbie, As far as I know, most, if not all of the colonies had a fine for those who did not "muster" when the militia was called out. |
|
15 May 06 - 11:33 AM (#1740970) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: GUEST "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin |
|
15 May 06 - 12:43 PM (#1741005) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Bill D "MY point is that if you consider the 2nd amendment to be invalid, because of a change in the society,..." Bruce...who said invalid was the operative word? Grab suggested that the the phrasing and interpretation used 250 years ago should be rethought. That's why we have a process for amending. It is also the case that the 2nd amendment IS a bit ambiguous in that 'milita' bit. It 'feels' to me and many others that they were saying that the people should have the right to "bear arms" when acting AS a militia! Of course, you and many gun owners & collectors automatically read that as something close to unlimited freedom to possess firearms in myriad forms. So...what does our claim that the 2nd amendment should be clarified and tightened have to do with the other amendments? One can claim that freedom of speech should be curtailed, but the arguments are not related except by awkward rhetorical twisting. Guns ARE a serious danger...we have bodies to prove it. Free speech is a bit harder to demonize, though slippery attempts are made everyday in some quarters. (They don't argue against it, they just find little 'exceptions'.) Sorry, Bruce, but this "look at all my hypothetical counter examples" routine for every argument is wearing pretty thin...*grin*. How about a BIG dose of Pragmatism....it'll make you feel better. |
|
15 May 06 - 01:25 PM (#1741039) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: GUEST,the banjoest Bill, my point is, is that you can ban guns but even the simple minded can still make them if they wish. |
|
15 May 06 - 01:30 PM (#1741042) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: beardedbruce And, the act of banning them DOES NOT reduce the crimes committed with them. |
|
15 May 06 - 01:39 PM (#1741052) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Grab MY point is that if you consider the 2nd amendment to be invalid, because of a change in the society, HOW can you object if someone considers the 1st, or other amendment, as invalid? Free speech? OK when you could only address a crowd, but with the internet... FAR too dangerous. So you're saying that repealing any single amendment is tantamount to repealing the entire constitution of the US? Prohibition proves this incorrect. I wouldn't object to ANY amendment being altered or repealed if a fair majority of the electorate believe that it's valid. Prohibition (an amendment) was voted in by a majority, and was voted out again by a majority (via another amendment). Personally I believe that *most* of the original amendments will be valid for all time, but some are artifacts of their era. As some comedian said about Jewish law: "Don't kill. Don't steal. Respect your parents. Don't eat pork....say what?!?!" Which I, for one DO NOT agree with. That's fine - I don't ask anyone to agree with me. But I'll give my reasons why I think what I do, and if they disagree, I'd ask them to be able to explain why, in ways that they can defend (even if the logic is as simple as "dude, I just like shooting shit up"). This would indicate that we're having a reasoned discussion. So, in return for me giving you my reasoning, I'd like you to give me yours. Quoting text of the US constitution doesn't count as reasoning, that's just lawyering. Reasoning means starting from first principles ("why do I want to own a gun?") and working forward. Now a valid argument is "I think I'm safer with a gun". I can point you at places that say you're not, but I'm sure you could find places that say you are. On that we can agree to disagree, because there's evidence for both sides. We may still have problems though with the question of whether everyone else is safer when you have a gun, which is a separate problem related to what I was saying about training, insurance, control of ownership, etc. There are very few cases in which everyone else would be safer, and an awful lot of cases in which they'd be in more danger. NOT shown- the phrase "the right of the people" is STILL there. Fine, but you've not shown why this phrase has any relevance today. The VALUE has been changed, due to inflation, but the PRINCIPAL has not. That's a fair point. How about Prohibition though, and the repeal of two amendments concerning that? Which is my problem- WHY should YOU have freedom of speech if there are those who might consider it to be a danger??????? You would alter the laws YOU do not like, but hold as absolutes the ones that YOU do like- REGARDLESS of others opinions. No I wouldn't. As I said, if the majority of the citizens of the US chose to repeal the right to free speech, then that's their choice. It's not a society I'd want to live in, but they absolutely have the right to self-determination. If they screw it up (like they did with Prohibition) then that's their prerogative. Graham. |
|
15 May 06 - 01:58 PM (#1741072) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: beardedbruce Grab, Fair enough. The Bill of rights is somewhat different from the other amendments, but never mind. THERE HAS BEEN NO attempt to CHANGE or repeal the second amendment, as provided by law, but to pass laws that are prohibited by it. IF the amendment is repealed, THEN my arguement is no longer valid. How is "freedom to assemble" relevent to today? It justs let a bunch of troublemakers get together and riot- like shouting "fire" in a movie theater ( sarcastic remark- I would NOT repeal any of the Bill of Rights) WHY should ANY right be considered valid, when you want it to be overridden WITHOUT repeal of the amendment providing it??? "Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. " |
|
15 May 06 - 02:24 PM (#1741090) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: beardedbruce "if the majority of the citizens of the US chose to repeal the right to free speech, then that's their choice. It's not a society I'd want to live in, but they absolutely have the right to self-determination. If they screw it up (like they did with Prohibition) then that's their prerogative." On this you have my total agreement. |
|
15 May 06 - 04:09 PM (#1741199) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Bill D banjoest...and my point is that we would be much safer if they HAD to make each weapon they used. I could deal with them trying. Bruce..."And, the act of banning them DOES NOT reduce the crimes committed with them." Why use a tautology as an argument? Of course that is true. Banning does nothing by itself..(and even I would not 'ban' everything) There needs to be detailed enforcement policies.... I am FULLY aware that any restrictions that people like me propose would take years to implement and get results from. Bad policies for so many years have dug us in pretty deep.... severe restrictions on ammo would help in the meantime, as well as more waiting periods for ANY purchase of ANY gun, and many changes in gun show deals. |
|
15 May 06 - 08:48 PM (#1741419) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Unfortunately BillD the only thing these restrictions will do is increase the supply and demand of illegal weapons, and make them more valuable to smuggle. The media do not publish the staggering statistics on how many good people defend themselves succesfully with a firearm, and focus only on the bad news aspect. If we focus on the criminals that use them, and have the temerity to fight back; and reintroduce the word consequence in the judicial system we might see a change for the better. I realise that is not something that is a popular view in this day and age, but it did work in days gone by. |
|
15 May 06 - 09:27 PM (#1741439) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Bill D sorry, Dave, but the statistics I have seen in recent years do not back you up about 'defending'. Unless you are just plain lucky, the more common outcome is that the criminal has 'the drop on you' and can easily shoot first. The stories about clerks who manage to get off a shot, or homeowners who catch burglers are nice, but ask your local police dept. about the true ratio. I cannot see how restrictions on production and sales will increase supply....demand for awhile would seem to increase perhaps as criminals strive to 'get their share' of a dwindling supply. Valuble to smuggle? Sure...until the penalties for smuggling get serious and enforcement gets organized. Right now, almost ANY would-be robber or disturbed kid can get guns & ammo pretty easily....often right at home or a friend's house. You REALLY want to keep this situation going in the hope that a few lucky citizens each year will make headlines by shooting the occasional careless criminal? "In days gone by" is Dodge City and Marshall Dillon, and the stones in Boot Hill will tell you it didn't work very well there, either. In the wild West, a gun was useful, at least, to shoot an occasional snake or wolf, but even then the bad guys usually shot first...from behind! |
|
16 May 06 - 10:54 AM (#1741829) Subject: RE: BS: a 1764 view of gun control From: Wolfgang You never hear of crimes committed with such weapons????? A short and nonexhaustive list of crimes committed with the army weapon in Switzerland (in German) In connection with the Rey-Bellet murder I have read that within family shootings are more frequent than in comparable countries. Wolfgang |