Gun control after Sept. 11th

Archive of the Sojourn3 General Discussion Forum.
Lyt
Sojourner
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Lyt » Fri Nov 09, 2001 7:54 am

Like guns or hate them, for those of us that live in the US, we all need to realize that the right to bear arms (the 2nd amendment) is as much a part of this country as the other amendments. Can you imagine the public outcry that would arise if they tried to eliminate:
1st amendment- freedom of religion, assembly, speech and press
4th amendment- the protection from unreasonable search and seizure
5th amendment- right to due process of the law, no double jeopardy, etc.

The second amendment is short and simple: 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.

You know what the definition of a militia was at the time the Constitution was written? According to the Federalist Papers, a militia was determined by the states constitutions at the time, but a militia in almost every state was defined as ANY male over the age of 18 (or was it 16? getting rusty on my history her.) At the time, those were the only people who were counted as citizens. So with women's sufferage, and the emancipation of the slaves, and citizenship status for all of these people, it would lead me to believe that all citizens are therefore considered to be members of each state's militia.

You know how to subdue and country and take it over from the inside? Take away the arms. Just ask the Russians when Stalin took over. At the time all gun owners were required to be "registered" with the government. When Stalin took power, the police went around with that list and confiscated all guns, and killed people who refused to give them up. Same thing in Cuba. Before Castro took over, all gun owners were added to a list. When Castro had his revolution, all gun owners were arrested or killed. There are people who will argue that this can and never will happen in this country, but no one can guarantee anything like that.

And for all the people who say "well the founding fathers never envisioned anything like assault rifles, grenade launchers, tanks, etc" that argument holds no water. This year a case went before the Supreme Court in which a man was arrested for growing pot in his garage, using heat lamps. The police were suspicious of this guy, and even checked with the power company and noticed that he was using more power than everyone else in his neighborhood. So what they did (since they had no reasonable suspicion yet to receive a warrant) was they got a thermal sensing device and basically looked through the walls of his garage to see the hot spots. They then used this as evidence to get a warrant and search the premises.

The Supreme Court determined that it was an illegal search because they violated his privacy. Now the founding fathers never forsaw thermal imagine cameras and stuff, but they didn't need to when they spelled out the 4th amendment. They made their intentions clear with a nice broad statement which is the 4th amendment. The same holds true with the 2nd amendment.

Now all that being said, here is what I believe :) I feel that anyone convicted of a crime involving a firearm should receive a greater sentence than someone who commits the same crime without a firearm. With rights come responsibility, and consequences for violation of those responsilibities. I believe that convicted felons should lose the right to own a gun, just like felons lose the right to vote. Once again wrong actions need proper consequences. I do not believe that I should have to pay an annual fee to own my guns, as some people (not on here) have proposed. I have no problem with states requiring me to register to get a photo ID to enable me to buy guns and ammunition. Just because to have the ID card does not mean that you own guns, it just means that you would like the opprotunity to own them should you decide to. It also does not ask what kinds of guns you own or plan on owning. They have no right (to an extent to know) this.

Now as for automatic weapons go. In some states (like Arizona) you are allowed by law to own machine guns, but first must register with the ATF and pass a background check. I have no problem with that either. I have shot a HK53 and a MP5K both on full auto, and let me tell you it is a total rush!

But enough of my ramblings. :)

Lyt, proud owner of a SKS (assualt rifle for those who don't know :)
Nida
Sojourner
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Galway, NY

Postby Nida » Fri Nov 09, 2001 8:10 am

W00t! Four pages! And it's been a very good discussion, too-- learned a lot from everyone here, on both sides of the issue (and that includes you fence-straddlers Image ). Maybe we should all spam the gods about the issue until they downgrade either gun control or the second amendment. Image

-Nida "Gun Fearers Can't Tank" the Flamer
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Nov 09, 2001 8:15 am

Shayla:

It isn't necessarily an anarchist impulse.. In my case its a libertarian impulse. I'm all for government, but a government that is limited to the extent that it does not take up roles that aren't neceesary.

Government is good at building and maintaining infrastructure.. highways, bridges etc. Stuff that private citizens and corporations do not have an incentive to do. Government is also the only rational choice for protecting the public at large, through a police force and military.

Corth
Malacar
Sojourner
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Boston, MA, USA

Postby Malacar » Fri Nov 09, 2001 8:38 am

No, I was just being insulting, just like you were. Image

I don't mind when people comment on things, but stop slinging the names and judgements. I poked at Ragorn earlier in this thread because of the way some of his stuff was worded. He clarified it(for me at least), and I left him alone, even though I am in dire disagreement with his opinions. And that's ok, because that is what America is all about.
Thurg
Sojourner
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

Postby Thurg » Fri Nov 09, 2001 9:18 am

Time to play Devil's advocate...

A ~ People are stupid, Wizards first rule(Wizard's first rule is a good book btw thats where i get it from) its completely true its not he gun's fault someone fired it. people will believe that if we had nothing "evil" in this world all bad things would stop just isnt right. guns make it easier but people would do it anyways.

Lyt's long post just preceding this is what i like best or... everyone owns and gun and kills each other so we have maybe a 1/4 of the people left on earth...

personally i believe in a lot of "evil" things abortion, guns, etc but i am a well educated(as much as you can be in public schools sorry but they are a joke) my father owns multiple black powder guns(the ones they shot during/before the revolution) and i have shot these. these were worse in my opinion when P.O.ed at someone they are lethal if you hit. no small holes, no missed organs. you have parts blown off or large holes in your body. george and company knew this. they knew they would be improved upon they accepted and let them have it.

the 2 site of someone from way back ive read too many damn posts in one sitting to remember who are also very good go read them

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/gunfacts.pdf

slavery existed long before our founders argued over it. the blacks of africa werent kidnapped by us they were sold to us by the conquerors who were also black. whites were enslaved at one point too. im sure there were slaves in asia too.

rape, yes sometimes it is used to et back at people but most times it is legit and many women are scared to report it or ashamed to.

enough of my ranting it wont be listened to anyway.

Peace ~ Thurg aka Zossonnarr(only 2 so far ;-))
Mplor
Sojourner
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Phoenix

Postby Mplor » Fri Nov 09, 2001 4:55 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
[B]Actually Mplor, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives us the right to Life, Liberty and Security of Person. Not property. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I referred to the French declaration of the rights of man in the 18th century, which directly contributed to the writing and spirit of our Constitution. I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. A 20th Century United Nations declaration?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You claim no one is saying that guns are causing violence, yet two paragraphs later you claim that getting rid of guns will reduce violence. Those are mutually exclusive claims. If guns do not cause violence getting rid of them will have no effect. </font>


Guns don't cause violence. People cause violence. People wielding guns will cause violence on a greater scale than people using less efficient instruments of violence. Removing guns will reduce the scale of actual violence. Go brush up on your syllogisms and then re-read what I wrote. You embarrass yourself.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The issue of intentional murders should also be kept separate from the issue of children accidentally shooting each other or their parents. Yes, getting rid of guns altogether would keep these children safe from themselves. But that can be accomplished much more effectively with responsible parenting and proper education. </font>


Responsible parenting cannot be guaranteed by law, and the lack of it can only be punished by law after the fact. Kid is dead, mom goes to jail. At best it is a deterrent, not a guarantee. The absence of a gun in the house, however, can be guaranteed before the fact by law.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 1999, 51% of homicides were committed with handguns, 14% with other guns, 13% with knives, 6% with blunt objects, and 16% with other weapons.

At first glance it might appear that you are correct. Eliminating guns will reduce murder by about 65%! This, however, is where I think we disagree the most. Taking guns away won't reduce the murder rate by 65%, it will reduce the rate of murderers using guns by 65%. The rates of knife, blunt objects and other weapons will all raise for a combined total of 65%.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct that eliminating handguns would not reduce the murder rate by 51%. You are incorrect in supposing that every murder by a man wielding a gun would be replaced, one-to-one, by a murder using a knife or other less-efficient instrument of death. You commit the error of stating that the level of violence in an individual is the only factor in the scale of violence perpetrated. Read my previous post for a more detailed explanation of why more efficient instruments of violence amplify a constant level of individual violent impulse.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">PPS. Isn't "Vespasa" Varia's old lastname? *looks confused*</font>


Good catch.
Mplor
Sojourner
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Phoenix

Postby Mplor » Fri Nov 09, 2001 5:11 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lyt:
<B>Like guns or hate them, for those of us that live in the US, we all need to realize that the right to bear arms (the 2nd amendment) is as much a part of this country as the other amendments. Can you imagine the public outcry that would arise if they tried to eliminate:
1st amendment- freedom of religion, assembly, speech and press
4th amendment- the protection from unreasonable search and seizure
5th amendment- right to due process of the law, no double jeopardy, etc.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me take you back in time 200 years:

"Like it or hate it, for those of us that live in the US, we all need to realize that the right to own slaves (Article I Section 9, and Article IV Section Section 2 of the constitution) is as much a part of this country as the other guarantees. Can you imagine the public outcry that would arise if they tried to eliminate . . ."

Jump to 1865:

"Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "

Things change as people learn better.
ShaylaRose
Sojourner
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
Location: OR, USA

Postby ShaylaRose » Fri Nov 09, 2001 5:22 pm

[This message has been edited by ShaylaRose (edited 11-10-2001).]
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Fri Nov 09, 2001 5:29 pm

For every statistic there is a counter, no matter how specious...

Lyt's quote:
You know how to subdue and country and take it over from the inside? Take away the arms. Just ask the Russians when Stalin took over. At the time all gun owners were required to be "registered" with the government. When Stalin took power, the police went around with that list and confiscated all guns, and killed people who refused to give them up. Same thing in Cuba. Before Castro took over, all gun owners were added to a list. When Castro had his revolution, all gun owners were arrested or killed. There are people who will argue that this can and never will happen in this country, but no one can guarantee anything like that.

Using this example we can also point out that Nazi Germany concentrated a lot of their focus on teachers and homosexuals...
ShaylaRose
Sojourner
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
Location: OR, USA

Postby ShaylaRose » Fri Nov 09, 2001 5:39 pm

[This message has been edited by ShaylaRose (edited 11-10-2001).]
azzixxenae
Sojourner
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Warner Robins GA

Postby azzixxenae » Fri Nov 09, 2001 6:41 pm

ya know...i'm too lazy to look, but i bet most of the people saying "america is going down..too many guns" , "america could solve their crime problem by banning gunds" and so on are probably europeans (don't get me wrong, europe is awesome!) But there are a lot of misconceptions between americans and europeans..for instance when I was in Germany I was talking to a Scottish guy who thought:

1. All americans ate ice cream...even at breakfast.

2. All americans owned guns and were ready to shoot someone.

shrug..I just wanted to add something to the 4 page post/
Zrax
Sojourner
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairborn, OH, USA
Contact:

Postby Zrax » Fri Nov 09, 2001 6:58 pm

Since when has anarchism represented a violent uprising against government? Anarchism is better defined as an idealistic state where the presence of a tangable governing body is not necessary because the general populace are capable of governing themselves with a collective morality. Everyone who thinks its a bunch of gung-ho leather wearing gun toting punk kids attacking city hall need to read more and watch less tv. The basis for any governing system is based on an evaluation of human beings in their natural state of being. I think time has revealed humanity to be a self serving mechanism that is kept in check only by its reluctance to lose what it has gained whatever that might be. When someone does not have anything to lose they are not afraid to resort to drastic crimes to gain possesion. This combined with unchecked ambition is why crime exists, in my opinion at least. So if its a gun, a knife, a piece of pipe, whatever, violent crime is here to stay in a society that divides its wealth on such extremes as the United States does. Gun control lost the day that Gun production became a commercial industry.
ShaylaRose
Sojourner
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
Location: OR, USA

Postby ShaylaRose » Fri Nov 09, 2001 7:22 pm

[This message has been edited by ShaylaRose (edited 11-10-2001).]
Zrax
Sojourner
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairborn, OH, USA
Contact:

Postby Zrax » Fri Nov 09, 2001 7:26 pm

I would suggest looking further than a dictionary definition when conceptualizing political ideologies.

Oh and I definantly agree and think that arguing for guns as a mechanism of social change is a barbaric notion in a culture that prides itself on civility.

[This message has been edited by Zrax (edited 11-09-2001).]
ShaylaRose
Sojourner
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
Location: OR, USA

Postby ShaylaRose » Fri Nov 09, 2001 7:46 pm

[This message has been edited by ShaylaRose (edited 11-10-2001).]
Zrax
Sojourner
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairborn, OH, USA
Contact:

Postby Zrax » Fri Nov 09, 2001 7:51 pm

Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
Date: 1642
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles
Thurg
Sojourner
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

Postby Thurg » Fri Nov 09, 2001 7:52 pm

Gun Laws, Culture, Justice & Crime in Foreign Countries
Do other countries all have more restrictive gun laws and lower violent crime rates than the U.S.? How do U.S. and other countries' crime trends compare? What societal factors affect crime rates?

A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.")

Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . . (T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes, yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland; Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.) In Japan, rifles and handguns are prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan's Olympic shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their country's gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15 years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between 1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in 1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan's suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom, "In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1, 7/15/99.)

U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country's Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million. Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.) Meanwhile, America's violent crime rate has decreased every year and is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime:
England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America's. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America's." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain 'one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.' Declared Dan Rather: 'This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.'" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America's First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999 and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html, www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment071800c.html, and www.nraila.org/research/19990716-BillofRightsCivilRights-030.html.

Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent. Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998. (Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00) For more information on Australian crime trends, see www.nraila.org/research/20000329-BanningGuns-001.shtml.

Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law (Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer, "assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003. C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and www.nraila.org/research/20010215-InternationalGunControl-001.shtml.

From 1978 to 1988, Canada's burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes, compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm laws. See also www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120700.shtml

Germany -- Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the most stringent in Europe," Germany's laws are almost as restrictive as those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her "need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995. (Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today, 11/20/91).

Italy -- There are limits on the number of firearms and the quantity of ammunition a person may own. To be issued a permit to carry a firearm, a person must prove an established need, such as a dangerous occupation. Firearms which use the same ammunition as firearms used by the military -- which in America would include countless millions of rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- and ammunition for them are prohibited. Yet, "Italy's gun law, 'the most restrictive in Europe,' had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders a year, thirty times Switzerland's total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.)

Foreign Country Cultures, Law Enforcement Policies, and Criminal Justice Systems
While America is quite different from certain countries in terms of firearms laws, we are just as different from those countries in other respects which have a much greater influence on crime rates. Attorney David Kopel explains, "There is little evidence that foreign gun statutes, with at best a mixed record in their own countries, would succeed in the United States. Contrary to the claims of the American gun-control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations. Despite strict and sometimes draconian gun controls in other nations, guns remain readily available on the criminal black market. . . . The experiences of (England, Japan, Canada, and the United States) point to social control as far more important than gun control. Gun control (in foreign countries) validates other authoritarian features of the society. Exaltation of the police and submission to authority are values, which, when internally adopted by the citizenry, keep people out of trouble with the law. The most important effect of gun control in Japan and the Commonwealth is that it reinforces the message that citizens must be obedient to the government." (The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992, pp. 431.)

Kopel notes that crime is also suppressed in some foreign countries by law enforcement and criminal justice policies that would run afoul of civil rights protections in the U.S. Constitution and which the American people would not accept. "Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America," Kopel observes. "Foreign gun control . . . postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government and society fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos. In the United States, the people give the law to government, not, as in almost every other country, the other way around." Following are details for two countries which anti-gun activists often compare to the U.S.:

Britain -- Parliament increasingly has given the police power to stop and search vehicles as well as pedestrians. Police may arrest any person they "reasonably" suspect supports an illegal organization. The grand jury, an ancient common law institution, was abolished in 1933. Civil jury trials have been abolished in all cases except libel, and criminal jury trials are rare. . . . While America has the Miranda rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.)

Recently, London law enforcement authorities began installing cameras overlooking selected intersections in the city's business district, to observe passers-by on the sidewalks. The British Home Office has introduced "'Anti-Social Behaviour Orders' -- special court orders intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular street or premises, set a curfew or lead to a person's eviction from his home. Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence of up to five years. Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on fears of their potential danger to society." (Kopel, et al., 2001, p. 27.)

"The British government frequently bans books on national security grounds. In addition, England's libel laws tend to favor those who bring suit against a free press. Prior restraint of speech in the United States is allowed only in the most urgent of circumstances. In England, the government may apply for a prior restraint of speech ex parte, asking a court to censor a newspaper without the newspaper even having notice or the opportunity to present an argument. . . . Free speech in Great Britain is also constrained by the Official Secrets Act, which outlaws the unauthorized receipt of information from any government agency, and allows the government to forbid publication of any 'secret' it pleases. . . . The act was expanded in 1920 and again in 1989 -- times when gun controls were also expanded." (Kopel, 1991, pp. 99-102.)

Japan -- Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens' residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan's police custody system "a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles." Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many other nations. They aren't allowed legal counsel during interrogation, when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no right to trial by jury. (Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.)

Posted: 4/10/2001

NRA Website
Thurg
Sojourner
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

Postby Thurg » Fri Nov 09, 2001 7:53 pm

Based on The government publications Of the United States Of America - NRA
So overwhelming is the evidence against this myth, that it borders on the absurd for anti-gun groups to try to perpetuate it.

There are tens of thousands of federal, state and local gun laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-618, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) alone prohibits persons convicted of, or under indictment for, crimes punishable by more than a year in prison, fugitives, illegal drug users, illegal aliens, mental incompetents and certain other classes of people from purchasing or possessing firearms. It prohibits mail order sales of firearms, prohibits sales of firearms between residents of other states who are not dealers, prohibits retail sales of handguns to persons under age 21 and rifles and shotguns to persons under age 18 and prohibits the importation of firearms "not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." It also established the current firearms dealer licensing system. Consider the following gun control failures.

Unless otherwise noted, crime data are from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun sales took effect in 1977 and by the 1990s the city's homicide rate had tripled. During the years following the ban, most murders, and all firearm murders, in the city were committed with handguns.1

Chicago imposed handgun registration in 1968, and homicides with handguns continued to rise. Chicago imposed a D.C.-style handgun ban in 1982 and over the next decade the annual number of handgun-related homicides doubled.2

California increased its waiting period on retail and private sales of handguns from five to 15 days in 1975 (reduced to 10 days in 1996), outlawed "assault weapons" in 1989, and subjected rifles and shotguns to the waiting period in 1990. Yet since 1975, the state's annual homicide rate has averaged 34% higher than the rate for the rest of the country.

Maryland has imposed a waiting period and a gun purchase limit, banned several small handguns, restricted "assault weapons," and regulated private transfers of firearms even between family members and friends, yet its homicide rate is 46% higher than the rate for the rest of the country.

The overall homicide rate in the jurisdictions that have the most severe restrictions on firearms purchase and ownership -- California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C. is 23% higher than the rate for the rest of the country.

New York has had a handgun licensing law since 1911, yet until the New York City Police Department began a massive crackdown on crime in the mid-1990s, New York City's violent crime rate was among the highest of U.S. cities.

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed unprecedented restrictions relating to firearms, nationwide. Yet, compared to the five years before the law, the national homicide rate averaged 50% higher during the five years after the law, 75% higher during the next five years, and 81% higher during the five years after that.

States upon whom the Brady Act's waiting period was imposed had worse violent crime trends than other states. Other failures of the federal waiting period law are noted in Fable V: "It is because of the Brady Act's five-day waiting period and the "assault weapons" law that crime has decreased," which follows.

The record is clear: gun control primarily impacts upon upstanding citizens, not criminals. Crime is reduced by holding criminals accountable for their actions.

Increasing incarceration rates -- Between 1980-1994, the 10 states with the greatest increases in prison population experienced an average decrease of 13% in violent crime, while the 10 states with the smallest increases in prison population experienced an average 55% increase in violent crime.3

Put violent criminals behind bars and keep them there -- In 1991, 162,000 criminals placed on probation instead of being imprisoned committed 44,000 violent crimes during their probation. In 1991, criminals released on parole committed 46,000 violent crimes while under supervision in the community an average of 13 months.4 Twenty-one percent of persons involved in the felonious killings of law enforcement officers during the last decade were on probation or parole at the time of the officers' killings.5

Enforce the law against criminals with guns -- The success of Richmond, Virginia's Project Exile, strongly supported by NRA, has grabbed the attention of the Administration, Members of Congress, big city mayors, and criminologists. Project Exile is a federal, state and local effort led by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Richmond, that sentences felons convicted of possessing guns to a minimum of five years in prison. Following the implementation of Project Exile, the city's firearm homicide rate has been cut by nearly 40%.6 Recognizing the program's success, Congress in 1998 approved $2.3 million to implement Project Exile in Philadelphia, Pa., and Camden County, N.J.
Thurg
Sojourner
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

Postby Thurg » Fri Nov 09, 2001 7:55 pm

those 2 are from a friend in my bw/d2x/t2/etc clan not what i found just do you know if you care

btw have i mention that in the 2000 years of european history when they had black powder rifles they stood in lines and shot at each other?
Malacar
Sojourner
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Boston, MA, USA

Postby Malacar » Fri Nov 09, 2001 8:43 pm

Shayla, I invite you to go back to read your post and point out a simple fact:

I was offended. So by saying your post was not offensive, is really not taking a look at it as a whole. Mine was intended to 'sling'. It's what I felt you did. I'm not going to apologize for writing it either. I will say that I am sorry I offended you, but I would do it again in light of your subsequent post.

You can hate me all you want, darlin'. Mine wasn't intended with malice, but to prove a point. One that, in my judgement, you don't want to look at. That's ok though. Image

I still don't hate you. And I honor your views, just like I honor every other intelligently phrased view in this thread. And even the unintelligent ones, actually. They still have an opinion. It's just sometimes hard to see.

If you'd like to discuss this offline, Shayla, I'd be happy to. As always, my email is posted. I'd rather not take up more thread-time than needed for a one-on-one discussion. Image
Mplor
Sojourner
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Phoenix

Postby Mplor » Fri Nov 09, 2001 9:25 pm

Thurg, the fine article you posted is biased and spindles the facts without any sort of consistency. The statistics cites rates of crime increase where the totaled crime figures do not support their arguments, and then turn around and use totaled figures where the rates of increase do not support their arguments. Look at the sources cited. How many of the most apparently damning documents come from the NRA - certainly a most impartial source!

Ask some Europeans if they think that selling un-restricted firearms in their nations would make their nation a safer place, as this article suggests. Perhaps some Europeans who read this thread would care to comment.

I especially liked the paragraphs that suggest that the governments of European democracies are heavy-handed and authoritarian. These are elected governments, mainly parliamentary systems. Suggesting that they are powers that answer to nobody is as ridiculous as it is false. It's the people who, in the end, decide the laws, just like here in America. Right now, more people here want guns than gun-control. When that changes, the laws will change, and blaming the government will be blind. Look to your neighbors who voted, instead.

As we discussed earlier, there is a comparable abundance of anti-firearm literature with equally damning evidence. Do you want me to post an article or two which dispute the conclusions of yours? So far this thread has been about people who have educated themselves and are posting their opinions. Would we be any better off here if, instead of posting our own opinions, we start posting those of others? I post here because I care about the opinions of my fellow posters, not those of professional editorialists. Educate yourselves, then post your own words here.
Yasden
Sojourner
Posts: 1597
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lake Stevens, WA, USA

Postby Yasden » Fri Nov 09, 2001 10:21 pm

Ragorn...Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot JFK...we all know it...look at the new evidence that has just arisen about that whole day. The bulletproof top for the car JFK was riding in was decided to be left OFF the car on the flight from Ft. Worth to Dallas...yes, Ft. Worth to Dallas...a 10 minute flight. This top had been used during all the other stops he'd been in before Dallas. Now...you tell me why they decided to not have JFK under that canopy for this time?

And did you know...that after he was shot...LBJ refused to get on the plane home until he was sworn in as President?

You can't base something speculative such as JFK's assassination on this subject, because the issue still hasn't been resolved (even though we all know it was a governmental conspiracy), and won't be resolved until 2038. 75 years for those documents to be declassified.

Even if Lee Harvey Oswald *did* shoot him that many times in that short of a time in that many places, it wasn't because of some personal agenda. It was because he was a paid mercenary. He did it because he wanted to. You can't use that as a viable excuse as to why guns should be banned.

Should we ban guns because a cop somewhere gets trigger happy? Should we ban guns because some 19 year old was tormented in school and goes ballistic? No. Gun manufacturers still to this day are creating more and more safety mechanisms for guns to prevent accidental gunshot deaths....but you can't and won't be able to ever fully stop the intentional ones.

I haven't fired a gun in 4 years...but I was raised around them, I've taken a firearms safety course. I can shoot very well, I could be dangerous if I chose to be...but I don't. I know the difference between right and wrong, I have common sense. Guns don't have brains, they can't say "hey don't pull my trigger you'll kill someone". So I still fully stand behind the notion that PEOPLE kill people. And yes...you can kill someone with a spoon. Jab it into their windpipe.
Thurg
Sojourner
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

Postby Thurg » Fri Nov 09, 2001 11:34 pm

for the record i never said i agreed with the things i posted. nor did i go out and find them just though they would be an interesting read.
Nitania
Sojourner
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Nitania » Sat Nov 10, 2001 1:32 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ShaylaRose:
Lyt, your posts are very intelligently written and a good example of how to argue a point so I enjoy reading them (even, as in the case of giving all women guns to protect themselves from the Teliban, I don't always agree).</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What *a lot* of folks are failing to realize is: Lyt posted an ARTICLE for his begining post. Not his writing, not his oppinion, an article that he found amusing.

Nitania

[This message has been edited by Nitania (edited 11-09-2001).]
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Sat Nov 10, 2001 3:04 am

bottom line is that america is about choice and freedom and being responsible. it rubs me the wrong way when people take away my freedom based on what i might do with it. telling me that im not responsible enough to own a gun.

shooting someone with a gun is generally a crime, but not always. leaving a gun lieing around where your toddler can shoot himself is criminal negligence. if you commit a crime you pay the penalities. thats the way it should be. not a bunch of well you might commit a crime with a gun so you cant have one, you might steal from someone to support your drug habit so you cant take any even in the privacy of your own fukin home.

basically if im not talking to you, not pointing one at you, then you need to leave me and my guns the fuck alone. if you want to live someplace where your protected and sheltered from the evil of guns (in your own mind, because the criminals have plenty of guns in every country) go live in another country.

i dont know how to say this without getting my ass flamed out of the water, so please try to understand my intent rather than piece it apart as a logical argument. theres way to little respect for people. if you spit in the face of someone you better expect to get your ass killed. but its exactly this kind of thing that has watered down personal respect over the years. i tell you what, id think twice about trying or ruining a poor mans life and wouldnt worry me one bit to cross a rich man. rich/intellectual man gonna sue you, poor man going to kill your ass. i wouldnt trust a intellectual/rich man unless i had a 50 page contract ill take a poor man at his word.

i read a good one yesterday guy carrying 200 pounds of pot in a van got stopped on the highway for a traffic stop. cop asks can i search your car and the stupid fucker says yes. my gawd, are there any americans that actually know their rights or we all a bunch of pussies. dont give away your freedoms. thats how we end up in debates of gun control because we never valued the freedoms we have. never give a cop permission to search your car, always shut your door and lock it if your asked to get out of your car or home. dont be scared that they going to take you to jail or write you a ticket if you did something wrong pay the price, you have rights and responsibilities dont plea bargain all that shit away.
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Sat Nov 10, 2001 3:31 am

well said
Mplor
Sojourner
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Phoenix

Postby Mplor » Sat Nov 10, 2001 3:43 am

Er, good point, Nitania.
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Sat Nov 10, 2001 11:30 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by kiryan:
never give a cop permission to search your car, always shut your door and lock it if your asked to get out of your car or home. dont be scared that they going to take you to jail or write you a ticket if you did something wrong pay the price, you have rights and responsibilities dont plea bargain all that shit away.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have something to hide? Why won't you let them search your car? You DO realize that cops are there to protect you right? That there is a reason they might want to search your car, i.e. because there are so many filthy criminals out there and it is their task to protect the law-abiding citizens? That they keep countries from falling apart because of rampant violence? Or would you rather live in a society without cops? I bet you would come crying back within a week. "Oh I'm so tough, my guns will protect me, I don't need no stinking cops. Fuck cops. Kill a cop today." Pathetic, really pathetic. Everyone is always bashing cops, in my opinion you are idiots. You're too stupid to realize what the world would be like without them.
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Sat Nov 10, 2001 12:21 pm

i knew yould chime in with another 2cents sooner or later Cherzra, ill give you one good reason to say no, they will trash your car, they will trash your house, and when they dont find anything theyll look again.
maybe i do have something to hide maybe i dont, but i dont want the cops coming thru my home every time they think something is up.
im glad we have cops, i happily pay taxes and would like to see more of those dollars go to law enforcement. but they are only people, they make mistakes, they get over zealous and they have rules just like the rest of us.
there is a reason they ask, because you can say no and to do so is not a crime.
i dont want to live in a country where there are all powerful police, ones who do what they want when they want, power corrupts.
the police work for me, the tax payer, telling them "no" is a nice way to remind them of that.


[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 11-10-2001).]
Nida
Sojourner
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Galway, NY

Postby Nida » Sat Nov 10, 2001 12:48 pm

I agree-- I'd at least like to hear justification before some guy starts taking off the panels on my doors. Image In America more so than other countries, police officers (especially standard beat cops) tend to fit the "asshole" profile more than the "friendly neighborhood crime prevention official". (Note I said tend to; I've known plenty of cops that don't fit that mold.) All that power gets a little heady at times, I guess. Image

And BTW, where did you see anything even implying "I don't need no stinking cops. Fuck cops. Kill a cop today"? I believe the actualy sentiment you were quote-unquote "paraphrasing" went a little something like "dont be scared that they going to take you to jail or write you a ticket if you did something wrong pay the price, you have rights and responsibilities dont plea bargain all that shit away (sic)". Talk about putting words in someone's mouth, Cherzra. Image
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Sat Nov 10, 2001 1:27 pm

What I read here comes down to the same thing. Incredible paranoia and delusions. Long live anarchy, screw the government! Happen to follow a certain David Koresh?

[This message has been edited by cherzra (edited 11-10-2001).]
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Sat Nov 10, 2001 2:38 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Yasden:
Ragorn...Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot JFK...we all know it...</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The man was convicted of murdering JFK. I'm not interested in hearing about X-Files conspiracy theories about what might have could have should have almost maybe might have happened. In this country, a conviction in court is as close to definite as we're going to get until 2038. Maybe then I'll change my mind, when I read some actual fact about the incident and not wild conjecture.

On a related note, my girlfriend's grandfather is Chuck Briggs. He's the man who was appointed Executive Director to the CIA following Kennedy's assassination. The first thing my girlfriend told me about him before I met him was "Don't ask him who shot Kennedy. He doesn't find it funny." Image

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Should we ban guns because a cop somewhere gets trigger happy? Should we ban guns because some 19 year old was tormented in school and goes ballistic?</font>


Yes.

And yes Image

Here are the facts I'm presenting:

- Lee Harvey Oswald was convicted of killing JFK. That's as close as I need to come to knowing for a fact he did it.

- LHO was Marine-trained in the use and maintenance of firearms. He had all the education one man could possibly have about using a gun. That did not stop him from shooting the President. He did it why? "Because he wanted to." Gun owners who claim education prevents deaths are wrong. Education is terrific, but it does NOT remove that desire.

- Had LHO not had access to a firearm, he would not have been able to kill our President. He could not have done it with a knife. He may have been able to plant a bomb or poison him, but the odds of him having access to the Presidential car or JFK's dinner are slim. No, instead he just entered a public building with an antique rifle, pulled the trigger three times, and left the building.

Don't be obtuse about this. Was LHO responsible for his actions? Yes. Was the gun responsible? Yes, partially. Is that a good reason to ban guns? It's a fairly large brick in the wall, so to speak.

I don't read this thread much anymore, by the way. Just happened to see your post.

- Ragorn
Shaylot
Sojourner
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 5:01 am
Location: WD

Postby Shaylot » Sat Nov 10, 2001 2:40 pm

I think all american families with kids should have a gun.

The chances of the kid finding the keys, playing dad, and killing his little sister is so much smaller than the risk of someone breaking in while your family is there, and then killing you because you don't own a gun.

If you don't have one, buy one. Remember, you have it to protect your kids.

-Shaylot (european) (denmark)
Nida
Sojourner
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Galway, NY

Postby Nida » Sat Nov 10, 2001 2:42 pm

Yeah, quite often people who are gung-ho for guns have different views on government than your average Brady-bill-loving mainstream guy who votes a straight-party ticket. Some of us like anarchy, some of us even live in communes and don't pay our taxes. Image But there's no widespread correlation between "I interpret the 2nd Amendment in this manner" and "I wish to overthrow my government and murder police officers". If you'd like to discuss something other than the social, political, personal, and other ramifications of gun ownership/availability, perhaps another thread is in order, ne? Image I want to see how the gun topic winds down-- it's in the final stages, where all the parroting is done and people really have to rack their brains to get a good point in. Edge-of-the-seat shit. ^_^

-Nida
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Nov 10, 2001 3:08 pm

Mplor: Yes, I was talking about a declaration the UN drew up. I didn't really know about the French thing. Of course, I'd be willing to bet the French declaration only applies to people that are caucasian, male and rich. Image

Bleh... don't know what syllogisms are. In any case, what proof can you offer that getting rid of guns will lower the scale of violence? Guns are an efficient way of killing people, but they are not the most efficient. As I've stated before the children in the Columbine massacre built bombs, a lot of them. They didn't need their guns at all really, and if they had just set the bombs off instead of going on a shooting spree more people would have died. Well, if they had built them correctly that is...

The absence of a gun in the house can not be gauranteed by law. Cops cannot just go into every home and randomly search for guns. They need just cause and a warrant; which they won't get until after someone gets shot inside the house. Gun enforcement can only happen after the fact. Look at what happened to that guy growing pot in his basement. He got off scott free because cops used new technology without a warrant to detect the heat in his house.

You are right that the 51% decrease in gun usage will not result in a 51% increase in knife and club usage. However I think the "other" category would increase by enough to make up for the lack of guns. Look at the anthrax scare in our country today. This is someone trying to murder people without guns. Look at the unibomber, someone who murdered several people without guns. You can get rid of guns, but that just means people will use other weapons when they want to kill someone.

Ragorn: You're confusing the issues. Education about guns is to prevent accidental deaths. That is to say, it prevents your 10 year old from stealing a real handgun, playing Cops and Robbers with it and accidentally shooting his little sister.

Education will not prevent willful murder. But you are deluding yourself if you think taking away guns will. LHO might not have been able to kill JFK at the same time he did with a gun, but he still would have eventually done it. I can think of two other presidents who were shot at point blank range, President Lincoln and President Reagan. Yes, I know they were shot with a gun, but that isn't the point. The point is they both got close enough where they could have used a knife just as easily as a gun. And if you can't get right next to the president, knives can be thrown from a decent distance.

Sarvis
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Sat Nov 10, 2001 3:25 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B> Of course, I'd be willing to bet the French declaration only applies to people that are caucasian, male and rich. Image
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wanna bet that? Or do you just like to show your complete ignorance of history in public.

(Hint! 1789)
Nare
Sojourner
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Nare » Sat Nov 10, 2001 3:45 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
<B>What I read here comes down to the same thing. Incredible paranoia and delusions. Long live anarchy, screw the government! Happen to follow a certain David Koresh?

[This message has been edited by cherzra (edited 11-10-2001).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are two pretty much two extremes of government - those that put the rights and identity of the individual over the perceived betterment of the group, and those that put the betterment of the group before the individual. There have been pretty good examples of both extremes throughout history.

I was trying so hard not to bring up that little 'problem' that Europe and others were having about sixty/seventy/eighty years ago. But others have mentioned it, so I feel justified at this point.

Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Vichy France, pre-War Japan, Stalin's Russia, Mao's "Great Leap" .... These governments all put the group, represented by the state, before the individual. Ever since, people have been writing book after book trying to figure out why people voted Fascist in Italy, capitulated with Germany in France, believed in the State Shinto rhetoric of Japan, got caught up in the "cult of the leader" in China, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc. People have been trying to figure out why individuals intentionally gave away their rights.

Really, I don't think its that hard to understand. Most of these movements were nationalistic - people wanted to be a part of something bigger than they were individually. Contemporary US culture, at least in the mainstream media, glorifies the individual to such a large extent that I think many people would have difficulty understanding a mass movement of that magnitude, where people were literally giving up rights "for the common good" - or, maybe they'd look to patriotic fervor and not wonder so much.

However, the other question that people tend to ask is, what would have happened if France HADN'T capitulated with Germany. What would have happened if, in '44 and '45 when practically everybody in Japan was starving...what if they HAD attempted an overthrow - or even earlier? All of these what ifs....

What it really comes down to, is this. I, as an intelligent human being, have the ability to disagree with the body that governs me. If I agree with America's "war of the day" I may help with the cause, if I approve of the most recent public works push, then I may volunteer. However, when the government begins to overstep its bounds...when I think that people might declare martial law, or gun confiscations may begin, or they're going to tell me that I can't vote, then I'm NOT going to stand for that. The government WILL have a problem on its hands, even if its only one twenty-three year old fighter with a hand gun and a copy of the Constitution.

I'm not an extremist - I believe in the rights of the individual, but I ALSO believe in the importance of the state as a governing body. I have no illusions as to whether I could defend myself from another country or build superhighways, but the government does it for me so I don't have to worry. However, it doesn't know enough to tell me what to do.

If I rebel, it's for the state's own good. I'm not the child - the government is. I'm its parent. It came from me, goddamn it, and it's not gonna smart-talk at me.

Image

Nare
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Nov 10, 2001 4:29 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jegzed:
<B> Wanna bet that? Or do you just like to show your complete ignorance of history in public.

(Hint! 1789)

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll take that bet. Read on:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Although the French revolutionary movement proclaimed the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, in practice its leaders were unwilling to even discuss the abolition of slavery. Indeed, the economic prosperity of the French bourgeoisie (or propertied middle class), the primary beneficiaries of the 1789 Revolution, stemmed partly from the wealth of colonial plantations and depended on the slave trade. Even the leading abolitionist movement, the Société des Amis des Noirs, promoted a gradual emancipation and compensation for slave owners. These factors made the French National Convention's decision in 1794 to abolish slavery in the French Empire all the more surprising. - http://www.africana.com/Articles/tt_355.htm </font>


It took 5 years for them to realize that their own document should outlaw slavery, and that was largely motivated by the revolution in Haiti. There was a group, the Societe des Amis des Noirs (Society of Friends of the Blacks) that was pushing for an end to the slave trade in 1789, but they were by no means the majority.

Sarvis
ShaylaRose
Sojourner
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
Location: OR, USA

Postby ShaylaRose » Sat Nov 10, 2001 4:54 pm

[This message has been edited by ShaylaRose (edited 11-10-2001).]
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Sat Nov 10, 2001 4:55 pm

The question in the heart of this debate is "Will you give up a little freedom for the sake of others?"

Many people outside the US are quick to answer yes. Americans though, are traditionally more concerned with themselves than anybody else. We drive SUVs that get 9 miles to the gallon, we throw away more food in a day than some people see in a week, our first reaction to a war in the Middle East is, "How much is gas going to cost me?" Most of you out there are probably thinking "Oh not me, I'm a concerned and responsible citizen." No, of course, not you. Not anybody. Not you, not me, not anyone.

Most of you Republican gun owners are the same people who scoff at programs like welfare and social security that take money from your pockets to give to those in lower tax brackets. Yes, you have your arguments all lined up, and in the middle of all of it is the sentiment "It's mine, you can't have it."

Freedom1, you want a response to your idiotic list of quotes?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...."

Ben Franklin and everyone that's lived in this country since his time are selfish brats.

- Ragorn
That DEFINITELY includes me.
Zrax
Sojourner
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairborn, OH, USA
Contact:

Postby Zrax » Sat Nov 10, 2001 4:56 pm

I read a statistic that said that most people shot during a burglary were shot with their own gun by the burglar.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat Nov 10, 2001 5:05 pm

Ragorn:

Look how successful collectivism has been in countries such as the former soviet union, cuba, china, and most of eastern europe. Yea they dont have SUV's.. or much else really. Well... they do have some of the most polluted environments you'd ever want to see.. probably since they're technology hasn't been modernized since prior to becoming a collectivist state. Maybe you should think about some of the arguments "lined up" against collectivist programs.

Corth
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Nov 10, 2001 5:11 pm

Ragorn, that is not at the heart of the debate. The question, at least for me, is "will giving up this particular freedom will help others at all." And I'm not a republican, or a democrat for that matter. I'm a person who thinks on my own and comes up with what I think is good.

Sarvis

[This message has been edited by Sarvis (edited 11-10-2001).]
ShaylaRose
Sojourner
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
Location: OR, USA

Postby ShaylaRose » Sat Nov 10, 2001 5:20 pm

[This message has been edited by ShaylaRose (edited 11-10-2001).]
Grxx
Sojourner
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Grxx » Sat Nov 10, 2001 5:26 pm

ragorn, are you fucking stupid? lee harvey oswald was shot during arrest. he never made it to court. he was never convicted.
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Sat Nov 10, 2001 5:36 pm

hey ragorn, why do you go find yourself a nice communistic country to go live in. sounds like thats what you want.
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Sat Nov 10, 2001 5:58 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Turxx:
hey ragorn, why do you go find yourself a nice communistic country to go live in. sounds like thats what you want.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFL..

And I thought Ragorn sounds like a hardcore rightwing conservative..

/Jegzed
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sat Nov 10, 2001 6:06 pm

Ragorn: arguing that LHO would not have been able to kill the president without a gun is specious.

Care to make a thermite rocket? Here is what you need.

*A model rocket engine (D size or larger, available through special channels and hobby stores, or down the street if you live where I do).

*India Red and India Silver (available from arts and crafts stores, essentially powdered iron and powdered aluminium).

*Magnesium (sold as a firestarter in army surplus and can be obtained from matches without too much difficulty)

*A PVC pipe with an open back

*Two pieces of wire, a switch, and a battery (the simplest circuit in the world).

*Other misc items to build the rocket out of.

The result can melt its way through the engine of a truck (along with half of the body) and, depending on your engine, can have an effective range of over a mile.

If you don't think that would make an effective "president-killing" substitute for a gun you are deluding yourself.

You are also deluding yourself if you think gun control laws would have prevented him from getting access to a gun.

There is also evidence that while he comitted the crime, he had help--and there were plenty of individuals with motive--but that is neither here nor there.

------------------

Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning

[This message has been edited by Elseenas (edited 11-10-2001).]
Nare
Sojourner
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Nare » Sat Nov 10, 2001 6:06 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ShaylaRose:
<B>Corth, you make good points but I must indicate that those were not governments "of the people" but rather governments that held falsely the ideas of a classless society.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually...that's not true. Certainly, it can be said that the ideal of Communism is a class-less society. However, Communism also said that the majority of people were too stupid and selfish to govern themselves and so the Party, those few enlightened individuals, would govern the populace for them. Even if that doesn't dictate _economic_ class distinctions, it's certainly got aristocratic overtones to it.

In pretty much all forms of fascism, there were very distinct class lines. Heck, fascism is ALSO the manipulation of a party system by an oligarchy within the context of an industrialized state, but fascism differs from communism in that it supports the _employers_ and the _bourgeois_ rather than the working proletariat. They're two very different authoritarian systems.

Just because they were both anti-Parliamentarian doesn't really signify that much, IMHO. You have to remember the historial context - Parliamentary systems were strongly associated with the economic, social, and demographic problems of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, so that anti-Parliamentary bent was also present in a lot of non-authoritarian movements.

Nare
Nida
Sojourner
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Galway, NY

Postby Nida » Sat Nov 10, 2001 6:12 pm

You don't mess with this girl when it comes to history and/or governmental systems. Trust me. She'll make your head hurt. Image

If nothing else, we should keep the gun system in America exactly as it is just to facilitate the further development of rap music. Frankly, the whole "playa" bit has about run its course, and the genre needs something to fall back on until it can find a new venue. I doubt that "bust yo ass with a pointy stick" will rocket DMX into the Billboard Top 10 anytime soon... Image

-Nida

Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests