PDA

View Full Version : The Right To Bear Arms!


Pages : [1] 2

Tigs2
6th Dec 2007, 21:06
First Ground Rule THIS IS NOT A YANK BASHING THREAD!!

With the latest shootings in Nebraska by another disgruntled student who wanted to 'be famous', using an AK 47, is it time to accept the the generic constitutional right to bare arms, needs serious re-consideration? The law was written at a time in history when it was entirely appropriate, with the threat of perhaps the brits coming back, the threat to settlers from North American Indians, and many earlier settlers living in communities outside the governance of the law. What place does this constitutional right have in the 21st century? There are many laws from the same period that people today see as ridiculous and they have been subsequently squashed.

Things that spring to mind are Homosexuality,
speeding horses,
it is illegal to marry a horse

Or from Nebraska itself

'If a child burps in church, it's parents may be arrested'!

'It is illegal for bar owners to sell beer unless they are simultaneously brewing a kettle of soup.'

'It is illegal for a mother to give her daughter a perm without a state license'


8 more innocent shoppers killed today, with a number of injured. What a good christmas they and their families are in for. It must be time to consider change when a 19 year old can walk freely into a shopping center with an AK 47, let alone the recent school killings.

I wonder what Charlston Heston and the NRA think about this one?

Howard Hughes
6th Dec 2007, 21:09
I wonder what Charlston Heston and the NRA think about this one?
I am sure their stance will be no different than it was on the ... previous occasions!:rolleyes:

PS: Given the topic, how can it not turn into a yank bashing thread?

brickhistory
6th Dec 2007, 21:13
Start with accurate (no pun intended) facts:

It was an SKS, a semi-auto, not an AK-47.

Finish with the thought that you will not change anyone's mind. Those that are against gun ownership will continue to believe.

Those that are for gun ownership, or the right therof, will continue to believe.


Oh, and it helps to be a voting citizen of the country involved to be relevant to the discussion.

Howard Hughes
6th Dec 2007, 21:16
Oh, and it helps to be a voting citizen of the country involved to be relevant to the discussion.
Good point, but how can we be sure of your bona fides, if voting is not compulsory? Perhaps we should say eligible to vote in the country concerned...;)

Tigs2
6th Dec 2007, 21:17
Brick

on the BBC news it is being reported as an AK 47 - forgive me:rolleyes:

Oh, and it helps to be a voting citizen of the country involved to be relevant to the discussion.

It is just that continuous pompous arse type of statement you always come out with that always degenerates threads in to yank bashing threads. Read my first line. Give your countrymen a break for gods sake and turn your computer off. :ugh:

tony draper
6th Dec 2007, 21:19
One notes the apparent desensitising effect of the 24 hour news channels,even on a slow news day,(canoist back from the dead,will they wont they lower interest rates) this time it didn't get a quarter of the coverage as the last time, and last time not half the coverage of the previous one,eventually we shall probably not even look up from our coffee.
Says summat about modern society but I'm fecked if I know what.
:uhoh:

Howard Hughes
6th Dec 2007, 21:21
will they wont they lower interest rates
Bugger, we only ever get interest rates going up in the Antipodes...:rolleyes:

Sorry for the thread drift in this most important thread, now back to the topic...:ok:

kiwi chick
6th Dec 2007, 21:23
Oh, and it helps to be a voting citizen of the country involved to be relevant to the discussion.

:ugh:

so let's just say what we this think anyway, with a disclaimer:

"As one is not a voting citizen of said country, one's written thoughts must be duly noted as being irrelevant to the conversation at hand".

Fcuk it I'm gonna say what I think anyway. I watched "Bowling for Columbine" and was absolutely blown away.

(ooops coincidental choice of words there but I'm going to leave them as they are for impact).

I cannot believe that an entire race/country/population (delete as applicable) can be so ignorant?? Or, is it more to the point, arrogant?

Does noone CARE about all these people being shot? It doesn't bloody happen like this in other civilised countries - not to this extent.

I guess because our comments are not relevant, it would be inappropriate to care - but guess what? I do.

Tigs2
6th Dec 2007, 21:28
Thank you Kiwi

I wish I could have put it like that instead of Brick just making me mad. Guess West Coast will be in on his side soon.

harpy
6th Dec 2007, 21:31
"The Right To Bare Arms!"
Tigs2
Everyone has the right to bare arms. But if you do so, you would be wise to rub in some sun cream before going out in the sun.

Howard Hughes
6th Dec 2007, 21:32
Well said KC!:D

green granite
6th Dec 2007, 21:38
Why do people get so uptight about such things, WHEN:

There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

In 2003 there were 6,328,000 car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million injuries and 42,623 people were killed in auto accidents.


In 2002, there were an estimated 6,316,000 car accidents in the USA. There were about 2.9 million injuries and 42,815 people were killed in auto accidents in 2002.

There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There were about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents in 2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration.

Tigs2
6th Dec 2007, 21:43
Green granite

Wonderful stats (sincerely!) where is the source, I would like to read up more.

I think you may agree that modern life could not exist the way it does without the automobile. However the fact is that most auto accidents are not criminal acts.

As regards your stats, we are not just talking about 8 people today. What are the total number of deaths per year from gunshot wounds? What are the total number of woundings?

kiwi chick
6th Dec 2007, 21:44
So what you're reinforcing to us is that Americans should not be allowed to drive, either.

Then again, it's a much more effective way of keeping check on a growing population.

:oh:

Howard Hughes
6th Dec 2007, 21:48
Why do people get so uptight about such things, WHEN:
Thousands die from Cancer every day too, does that mean we should not try and reduce unnecessary deaths?

We should be trying to stop any unnecessary death where we can!

con-pilot
6th Dec 2007, 21:52
The only thing I'm surprised about is that it took so long to drag out the old soapbox.

Tigs2
6th Dec 2007, 21:53
Brick

The second Amendment of the American Constitution States

"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."

Does that apply in a modern society with a system of law and an armed forces??

Green Granite

just whilst I look up some more
in 1997 there were 32 436 deaths in the USA from Gun crimes!! Pretty close to your auto accident rates eh!

Why do people get so uptight about such things, WHEN:

mmmm :rolleyes:

green granite
6th Dec 2007, 21:54
So what you're reinforcing to us is that Americans should not be allowed to drive, either.

Not at all, just putting the death of the 8 people into perspective, it equals less than 2hrs worth of road deaths. Yes it's a tragedy for the families, but so are road deaths.

brickhistory
6th Dec 2007, 21:56
Tigs, me thinks you are spring loaded to interpret my comments in a negative way. Perhaps with reason....

However, in the final analysis, for American actions and values and any changes thereof, the only ones whose opinion does matter is those that will vote on any such action.

I in no way want to restrict your right to feel as you do or comment, just would like you to realize that an internal US matter, the interpretation of the
2d Amendment and any legal ownership of guns for US citizens is just that, a matter for US citizens.

The UK chose to make all comply and surrender their freedom to own legally held guns due to the act of one madman. And that is the UK's progative, as much I as personally disagree with it. Your citizens chose to go along with it.
Here, we, in the main, chose not to. Yes, even at the cost of innocent lives due to a nut job, the RIGHT to freedom of individual choice, in this case, gun ownership, is that precious.

And, as UK crime statistics will support, illegal possession of guns is still rampant and deaths by illegal guns are on the rise.

Disagree all you want; pity us 'poor savages' if you must. But do realize, without offense intended, it is not your concern.

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

Tony Draper actually hit the nail on the head. It's the publicity these monsters crave. Don't feed it and these tragedies will stop. The insatiable 24/7 cable news media brings much of the tragedy by its non-stop coverage.

kiwi chick
6th Dec 2007, 21:59
Oh, but I disagree. It IS our concern if we ever want to visit your country - and spend our hard earned money in your country.

The chances of which are getting smaller and smaller by the day.

brickhistory
6th Dec 2007, 22:04
Oh, but I disagree. It IS our concern if we ever want to visit your country

And it would be a pity if you let the statisically small chance of something bad happening tostop you from visiting. It's a great big place to see and experience.

But I'm sure there are lots of places to visit where nothing bad will happen if it is that worrying to you.

Please write and let us know where that is........................

TheDesertFerret
6th Dec 2007, 22:05
Brickhistory.

By your logic does it mean in the future we can be spared from your many opinions expressed on UK matters?

I assume, unless you have UK residency, you will not be voting in my country ergo you are notrelevant to the discussion on any UK matters?

This does smack a little bit of "can give - but can't take".

df

brickhistory
6th Dec 2007, 22:07
DF, please find one post where, other than tongue in cheek, on Jet Blast where I have voiced an opinion as to what the UK should or should not do?

If you do, I will apologize. But I think it will be hard to find..............

Howard Hughes
6th Dec 2007, 22:07
The only thing I'm surprised about is that it took so long to drag out the old soapbox.
And the usual suspects...;)

pigboat
6th Dec 2007, 22:10
Eighteen years ago today in Montréal, at the École Polytechnique, a twenty five year old loser named Marc Lépine shot twenty eight students - all of them women - killing fourteen of them. This country has some of the most stringent gun laws anywhere, but this piece of shit was still able to obtain a semiauto rifle legally. In a knee jerk reaction to the killings the then Lieberal government passed even more restrictive gun laws, including the right for police to enter your home or place of work without a search warrent if they even suspect you own an unregistered weapon.

Just over a year ago at Dawson College, also in Montréal, another Lépine wannabe using a legally acquired firearm, shot a half dozen students, killing one. Tell me again how well gun laws work.

boofhead
6th Dec 2007, 22:12
The argument is moot (US Definition, meaning no point in continuing to talk about it) since there are already a large number of guns in private hands and no way to confiscate them. See how ineffective it was in UK, Canada and Aus, where the number of guns are about the same, but now they are in the hands of criminals and the rates of gun violence are going up.
I really thought the Brits/Aussies etc were more intelligent and able to see through the propaganda. Apparently not.
Perhaps the real solution is to require private citizens to carry a weapon, so they can immediately stop this type of crime, and given the state of our youth, we can expect a number of copycats, as it seems this guy was himself.
It is rare to read about any gun violence case without realising that the outcome would have been much better if the victim had been armed and able to defend him/herself.

TheDesertFerret
6th Dec 2007, 22:14
If I did search you back catalogue Brickhistory how would I distinguish between you slating my country quite literally or "tongue-in-cheek"? Do you use a different font or italics?

And you've never commentated once on UK matters? Really? Right. :}

However, I'll be holding onto that quote of yours next time your "at it".

You might be seeing that quoted back to you a few times in the near future.

green granite
6th Dec 2007, 22:14
The UK chose to make all comply and surrender their freedom to own legally held guns due to the act of one madman. And that is the UK's progative, as much I as personally disagree with it. Your citizens chose to go along with it.Actually we had no say in the matter, it was decided by the huggy fluffs in power at the time. It in no way stops criminals from getting guns and shooting each other.

There is a large upsurge in knife killings in the UK at the moment, perhaps the huggy fluffs will try and ban all metal knives so as to prevent these people getting hold of them.


Boothead Well said.

brickhistory
6th Dec 2007, 22:18
If I did search you back catalogue Brickhistory how would I distinguish between you slating my country quite literally or "tongue-in-cheek"? Do you use a different font or italics?

And you've never commentated once on UK matters? Really? Right.

However, I'll be holding onto that quote of yours next time your "at it".

You might be seeing that quoted back to you a few times in the near future.

A) It should be apparant.
B) Commentating? Sure, usually asking questions, sometimes replying back, even returning fire. To me the difference is that in your first post in this thread calling me out, you said I gave my opinion on what the UK should do on internal matters. I really don't think I have.
C) I'm scared. This internet bullying will have me going mental - and I've got guns....................

con-pilot
6th Dec 2007, 22:21
All right I will pass up a perfect opportunity to keep quiet, again.

The Second Amendment, as in the meaning of, will be heard before the Supreme Court sometime next year in March.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-scotus.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

So all of you that live outside the United States can petition the Supreme Court and give them your views on how the citizens of the United States should conduct our lives and affairs. I'm sure they would love to hear from you.

tony draper
6th Dec 2007, 22:23
Hmmm, one oft puzzles over why the UK didn't become a tooled up society,after all firearm laws didn't come in until the 1920's,anyone could walk into any gunshop and walk out tooled up like Arnie no questions asked,suppose we didn't have a wild west,leastwise our wild west,(the borders occured in the days of sword lance and arrow) the heavily armed man of the west is mostly a Hollywood myth anyway,even that famous tintype of Billy the Kid he is holding studio props.
:rolleyes:

TheDesertFerret
6th Dec 2007, 22:26
"Calling out"? Bullying? What the devil are you talking about?

Don't be daft Brickhistory. I thought we saw eye to eye even though we oft disagree with each other.

You've made a bold statement that individual's opinions on other countries than their own are "not relevant" (which is very odd on an international chat-site?????)

This means henceforward to be consistent with your expressed belief you will restrict your opinion to US matters alone does it not?

Is that really "calling you out" and "bullying"? Too aggressive lexicon for me.

Or was that tongue-in-cheek? Maybe I'm off the pace.

Lamenting Navigator
6th Dec 2007, 22:27
You have to question the motives. Apparently, the gunman "wanted fame" and thought that to achieve it he had to go on a killing spree.

And you have to agree. Everyone's talking about him. Blanket coverage on the media. So, mission accomplished.

I worry about celebrity culture and this obsession with fame. Is this really all that some people live for? Sadly, it is. But the availability of firearms is equally worrying. And everytime there's a shooting rampage, all the old stories get dragged up. There we are, immortality.

Makes me shudder. Makes me glad I live here and not there. I was there at the weekend and have to say, I'm glad to be back.

brickhistory
6th Dec 2007, 22:28
Or was that tongue-in-cheek?

Yes, sir, it was.

Howard Hughes
6th Dec 2007, 22:31
See how ineffective it was in UK, Canada and Aus, where the number of guns are about the same, but now they are in the hands of criminals and the rates of gun violence are going up.
Source?

If you are going to make such bold statements, you better put forth some figures from credible sources!

By the way not all guns are illegal in Oz, mostly just automatic weapons, those who wish to have guns can, but with some restrictions! It is also not possible to obtain a gun licence in 1 day, there is at least some form of police check first and a 21 day cooling off period...:rolleyes:

As I have said before, I would love to have a BIG kick arse gun, but if that means that when I go down to the shops, I may be mugged at gunpoint, I choose to minimise the number of guns in society! As for the figures as to how many guns are in Australian society, I can assure you it is far less than prior to the new laws being introduced! Previously just about everybody I new had a gun of some description, now the only ones I know are farmers...:ok:

PS: You would be shocked how many guns were handed in during the amnesty, around 50% of which were unregistered!

con-pilot
6th Dec 2007, 22:31
the heavily armed man of the west is mostly a Hollywood myth anyway,even that famous tintype of Billy the Kid he is holding studio props.


Right you are again Mr. D. The most common weapons in the "Wild" west were the rifle and the shotgun, by far. The old bit of standing in the street and drawing down is mostly a Hollywood myth. The sheriffs and the town marshals nearly always carried sawed off shoguns as their primary weapon, the shotgun was much more accurate and dependable than the pistols of the old days.

Lost_ethics
6th Dec 2007, 22:32
Surely if these psychopaths intend to go around shooting innocent people they're going to be able to get a gun if the law says they're allowed one or not. The UK have strict gun laws, yet there's still shootings. So what's the answer? Should everyone be allowed a gun? Or, more armed police and security?
Answers on a postcard...

Howard Hughes
6th Dec 2007, 22:34
The Second Amendment, as in the meaning of, will be heard before the Supreme Court sometime next year in March.
Could you keep us informed Con? I would like to hear the outcome.

Cheers, HH.:ok:

Tigs2
6th Dec 2007, 22:42
Granite

You made a big deal about how insignificant todays occurence was compared to auto accident rates being 42000 per year (or there abouts) yet you did not answer my last post.

Green Granite

just whilst I look up some more
in 1997 there were 32 436 deaths in the USA from Gun crimes!! Pretty close to your auto accident rates eh!

The current rate of deaths from Gun crimes in the USA is approx 35000 per year. I don't know about you but i think that is quite significant. In addition there are 80 suicides per day(26 thousand?) the majority of which use guns

So as a comparison against auto deaths (society can not exist without cars) Vs Gun deaths (society can exist without guns) your point is??

Davaar
6th Dec 2007, 22:43
.... and the Brits got their repressive gun laws in the 1920s because the government was deadly afraid of thousands of men who had learned to handle the Lee Enfield on picnics in France, got their limbs shot off, and had come home to the land fit for heroes, with full right to live off the sale of pencils at street corners.

And Pigboat, dere you 'ave da Canadian value, da Leeberal way. Today we had the aberration of the head of the CMA coming out and actually saying it:

Sure, I jumped the queue in this Holy Socialist Medical System that lets you wait eight months or a year for an operation; after all, everyone does. Not my kid, though: she was treated that very afternoon.

Right on, doc.

CarltonBrowne the FO
6th Dec 2007, 22:47
Tigs, I have never seen statistics which do not include suicide by firearm in the overall firearms death figure. Can you cite the reference please?

BillHicksRules
6th Dec 2007, 22:47
GG,

You win the prize for this threads (so far) most pointless introduction of facts.

What does the stats covering auto deaths have to do with gun control?

You might as well have quoted the number of apples sold Wal-Mart on Tuesday.

As Brick has quite rightly stated, no opinions will be altered by this thread.

Those who want guns will still want guns and those who want to reduce needless deaths will have continue to be shocked every time something like this happens.

As Brick further correctly states only US voters (and the Supreme Court) can prevent further atrocities like this.

As a non-US citizen, I can only hope that there will come a time when something will be done to at least prevent tragedies such as this.

The only thing missing is the desire.

The question is how many more innocents must die?

I will forego my usual "Cheers" as it does not seem appropriate given the subject matter.

BHR

BlooMoo
6th Dec 2007, 22:50
It was an SKS, a semi-auto, not an AK-47

Good point. Let's hope nobody thinks that teenage psychopaths in America have to resort to indiscriminate murder with outdated tools...

Howard Hughes
6th Dec 2007, 22:52
Hear Hear Mr Rules...:D

In particular this:
As Brick has quite rightly stated, no opinions will be altered by this thread.

Those who want guns will still want guns and those who want to reduce needless deaths will have continue to be shocked every time something like this happens.

As Brick further correctly states only US voters (and the Supreme Court) can prevent further atrocities like this.

As a non-US citizen, I can only hope that there will come a time when something will be done to at least prevent tragedies such as this.

The only thing missing is the desire.

The question is how many more innocents must die?

Tigs2
6th Dec 2007, 23:03
Bill

true no opinions will be changed by this thread. The same can be said about all other threads on this site, therefore lets pull the plug on Prune! The purpose of these sites is so that diverse people on other sides of the world can engage in intellectual debate (with the exception of JetBlast:}) regardless of which country you come from Brick!

Brick

You (as usual) have clarified and make some valid points the fact is a lot of people are killed in the USA by gun crime. But for those that consider that these deaths are nothing to do with me as a UK citizen, then you underestimate me. I am sad to say i feel sorry for the loss of US citizens as much as I feel the loss of UK citizens, and Iraqi and African and....etc get the picture. I cannot vote in the USA that is up to you, but if debate can be encouraged that will offer an alternative way of thinking, that may result in less deaths of innocents then i am all for it.

Carlton

It was on Google/yahoo. I did not save the page. However it was very difficult just to come across the number of deaths by gun crime in the USA (censorship?).

brickhistory
6th Dec 2007, 23:14
BHR, With your self-proclaimed superior education (wanna bet?), you missed the subtle, but important, nuance I put on my post:

instead of your Those who want guns will still want guns and those who want to reduce needless deaths will have continue to be shocked every time something like this happens.

when in fact I said the the right to the individual freedom of gun ownership is the principle worth even the cost of innocent lives.

And I did it without backhanding those that disagree with my viewpoint.

Manners, I suppose..........

Tigs2
6th Dec 2007, 23:18
Sorry brick who is that aimed at ???Deeerr! I didunt clame to have abetta edjukasion?

Wino
6th Dec 2007, 23:49
You wanna stop these from happening? The answer is not to ban guns.

The Answer is to ban electonics. No TV's no Radios No computers, No computer games.

Its is the constant bombardment of violence that desensitizes people to violence that allows this to happen. It gives a platform for sick people to become "famous".

It is not GUNS that are causing this but the constant overload from the boob tube, video games, movies etc...

Did you ever notice how the columbine leather trench coats look a lot like the Matrix?

Since banning electronics is not going likely to happen, relaxing gun laws will atleast level the playing field and stop wholesale slaughters... So oddly enough the answer is probably more guns.

But that isn't politically correct soooooooooooo....

Cheers
Wino

Tony Hirst
7th Dec 2007, 00:04
Its is the constant bombardment of violence that desensitizes people to violence that allows this to happen. It gives a platform for sick people to become "famous".I don't see the validity in that argument. Even a child knows the difference between fantasy and reality. It seems to me that people who like to shoot other people have a problem dealing with the real world, a fascination with themselves and not violence per se.

If there is a correlation between violence and TV, it is more likely to be inspired by TV news. Seeing real violence, GIs or Brit Paras piling rounds into buildings across blood stained streets is what desensitised people.

Personally, on the one hand I think the idea that people are permitted to own guns as totally and utterly preposterous. But then the right to bare arms is possibly the last line of defence against a rouge government...as bizarre as it sounds. Can a country where half of the citizens own automatic weapons ever fall out of democracy and into a dictatorship?

BlueDiamond
7th Dec 2007, 00:12
Since, by admission, at least THIS crime was committed so that the offender could achieve some degree of "fame," perhaps an agreement between press agencies to automatically suppress offenders' names would help. Or even a law enforcing suppression if necessary.

It would not stop the "I hate the whole world" type of incident or the upset boyfriend/girlfriend thing but those who do it merely to achieve their 15 minutes of fame might think twice if they knew their name would never even be known.

con-pilot
7th Dec 2007, 00:17
It would not stop the "I hate the whole world" type of incident or the upset boyfriend/girlfriend thing but those who do it merely to achieve their 15 minutes of fame might think twice if they knew their name would never even be known.

Well said Bluey, well said. :ok:

pigboat
7th Dec 2007, 01:03
Sure, I jumped the queue in this Holy Socialist Medical System that lets you wait eight months or a year for an operation; after all, everyone does. Not my kid, though: she was treated that very afternoon.


Davaar my friend, I have always thought it middlin' strange that one could buy one's mistress an abortion in this great Dominion, but could not buy one's Sainted granny new hips.

PA-28-180
7th Dec 2007, 01:04
Re: effectivness of 'gun laws'....
It should be noted that the mall in question was located in a 'no gun' zone...meaning that even off duty police must leave their guns outside. Interesting to note that many of the multiple killing sites recently were ALSO located in 'no gun' zones....except one, where an off duty cop ignored the law and took down a shooter before he could rack up his score!

Yeah....tell me about how gun laws work!

Tigs2
7th Dec 2007, 01:26
PA-28

It should be noted that the mall in question was located in a 'no gun' zone...meaning that even off duty police must leave their guns outside.

I guess you meant the 'Male!". What is the point in having a no gun zone, when you allow any citizen to carry one? Besides the on-duty police WERE carrying guns. Frankly off duty police SHOULD leave their guns in the police station.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

This was not a hand gun! this was an assault rifle!! You are lucky he was a shit shot! He fired thirty rounds and killed 9 people. Thank God he didn't go to a gun club!!! I am sure the NRA would have been pi***d off with less than 27 out of thirty rounds from a member!!

Blacksheep
7th Dec 2007, 01:43
We don't have the right to bare arms here in Brunei.

We have to keep our sleeves buttoned to the cuff. :(

I'm hoping shortly to move to a more liberal society, where I'll be permitted to roll my sleeves up above the elbow or even (shock! horror!) wear a singlet in the street.

con-pilot
7th Dec 2007, 01:43
Frankly off duty police SHOULD leave their guns in the police station.


Absolutely not, no way in hell. In the United States the vast majority of Police Officers are alway on duty. Also there has never, repeat never, been a shooting of this type by anyone who has a concealed weapon permit.

It does not matter that the guy had an assault rifle, it was not a full automatic. Anyone who was a decent shot with a pistol could have taken him out. One just needs to put away the BS of not shooting someone in the back nonsense away and take the shot.

The anti-gun crowd really takes the case. They don't know what they are talking about.

Bottom line is; take the guns away from law biding citizens and only the bad guys will have the guns, period. Washington DC is the perfect example, it has the strictest gun controls laws in the US, close to those of the UK and yet Washington DC has the highest gun related crimes per-capita in the US.

Fliegenmong
7th Dec 2007, 01:53
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/07/2112471.htm

:rolleyes:

Only the baddies have guns in Aus. - so what's our record like? Has there been another Port Arthur dince we banned guns??

Blacksheep
7th Dec 2007, 01:58
...and yet Washington DC has the highest gun related crimes per-capita in the US....or conversely, that fact may be the reason for the strict gun control laws. ;)

Don't get me wrong, I'm a rifleman myself, but gun controls aimed at controlling who legally owns a weapon and how they store or carry the weapon are generally sensible.

The policeman who approached my car in a lay-by near Henley upon Thames while I was changing a tyre, was robbed of the power of speech when he looked in the open boot and saw an automatic rifle, a sniper rifle and a sub-machine gun. I thought he was going to crap in his pants when I then produced a pistol from my pocket, to add to the pile. Fortunately, I don't have an Irish accent and as it happens, I was legally in possession of them, but I'm not sure I'd trust the average Joe Public with that little collection.

kansasw
7th Dec 2007, 02:20
"Oh, and it helps to be a voting citizen of the country involved to be relevant to the discussion." sez Mr Brick.
Well Mr Brick, I see your point in a way, but mostly disagree. The discussion involves gun control laws and gun nuts and deranged people and many others. All these occur in many countries including yours and mine. Why (according to your expression as I take it) should I, US citizen and voter, be excluded from discussing the (idiocy is not a strong enuf word, help me out here) of wanting to lash or kill a lady for participtating in a process of naming a teddy bear with the same name borne by millions of live persons?
I may be wandering far afield and making only poor contributions to the argument, whatever it is.
Whatever it is, it is still fun. Carry on.

PA-28-180
7th Dec 2007, 02:20
The point is that the on duty cops arrive AFTER something has happened. Many, many cases show that a (legally) armed civilian or off duty cop have STOPPED what could well have been a multiple killing situation.
Con-pilot....:ok:

Buster Hyman
7th Dec 2007, 02:30
Lets hope your car never gets stolen Blacksheep!:ooh:

For my 2 cents, I have faith in VicPol to look after me & my family. I have no confidence in private citizens taking the law into their own hands.

If I have the forsight, I'll make sure I'm wearing my brown corduroy trousers when I get bailed up by a gun toting idiot. I'll also make sure that the idiot sees I am no immediate threat to him & perhaps I'll get away with it. After that, I'll let the cops deal with it.

Its really quite simple.

AMF
7th Dec 2007, 02:44
With the latest shootings in Nebraska by another disgruntled student who wanted to 'be famous', using an SKS, is it time to accept the the generic constitutional right to bare arms, needs serious re-consideration? The law was written at a time in history when it was entirely appropriate, with the threat of perhaps the brits coming back, the threat to settlers from North American Indians, and many earlier settlers living in communities outside the governance of the law. What place does this constitutional right have in the 21st century? There are many laws from the same period that people today see as ridiculous and they have been subsequently squashed.

You keep using the terms "Rights" and "laws" interchangeably, and they are 2 different things. The Right to bear arms exists a priori, according to the philosophy that manifested itself in the Bill of Rights/1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution minus the Bill of Rights is merely a framework to set up a working government and defining divisions of State power. The Bill of Rights were instructive reminders ("Congress will pass no Law") to those who would fill that framework in the role of Legislators. In this regard, the Right to bear arms is no different than the right of Speech, a free press, or a directive against the Government's establishment of a State Religion.

In other words, the Right to bear arms (the right to defend Life and therefore property) wasn't something granted by a governement for pragmatic reasons such as Indians or returning Brits...this Right, along with the others, always exist. A government merely either recognizes and protects that inherent Right(s), or it tyrannically supresses it(them).

Thus, you won't find any of the first 10 Amendments individual rights "subsequently squashed" i.e. repealed. They are considered fundamental to the philosophy that drove the Founders to treason and revolution, and the subsequent attempt to set up a government that based it's justification on protecting them.

What place does this right have in the 21st century you ask? An inherent Right (in this case the right to protect one's own Life) doesn't come and go with a calender. The flip side to the Right to Life is not infringing on someone else's right for the same, and by implication "the right for you to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". Laws are passed and exist for the State punish those after the fact who don't adhere to this philosophy, but a State taking away your ability to defend yourself at the time of the infringement would be considered tyrannical.

[8 more innocent shoppers killed today, with a number of injured. What a good christmas they and their families are in for. It must be time to consider change when a 19 year old can walk freely into a shopping center with an AK 47, let alone the recent school killings.[/

With this reasoning (Inherent Rights are as changeable as man-made laws and current events ) I could easily argue that if we want to prevent senseless deaths we should immediately repeal the Right of a free press.
Far more than developement of firearms, in no way could the Founders have envisioned the modern media and it's power via mass printing, radio, and especially the instananeous broadcasting of visuals worldwide. The Founders had things printed on hand-cranked presses and delivered pamphlets by horse-drawn cart.

And it's through this mass-media that some of the biggest butchers in history have propogandized, assumed control, and carried out mass murder on a scale the world had never envisioned in 1776. Lenin had his leaflets, Hitler had his radio and newsreels, and Mao's Little Red Book holds the world record in printing.

You use 8 shooting deaths in Nebraska as a catalyst to ask whether they should supress a right. What about 800,000 machete and forced drowning deaths in Rawanda that began when fleeing government officials used mass-media, goverment-run radio broadcasts to first instill fear and divisiveness, and then urge the citizenry to engage in an orgy of killing...and they did?

More recently, how many deaths, injuries, and damage were caused in how many countries by one Egyptian, who gleaned an insulting political cartoon from an obscure Danish newpaper, and using the press and mass media proceeded to whip up a frenzy of rioting throughout most of the Muslim world?

And more to the point of this thread, the dissemination of events like those in Nebraska through the media obviously produce copycats. There's been a few major newpapers in the US...I believe the Chicago Tribune was the first...who as of several years ago recognized this and responsibly refrained from printing front page headlines regarding schoolyard shootings. Not that kids in school read the newpapers, but it's what was in their power to do and most applauded them for it. The TV media/press, however (being mostly children themselves), accepts and exhibits no similar responsibility for the greater visceral power it wields.

The Founders would easily recognize an AK-47 for what it is and most likely wouldn't think twice about the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment. The technological differences aren't all that great and whereas you could privately own a cannon in their day, just try walking in somewhere to buy a stick of dynamite now. But lay out the current tools of media before them and they'd be stunned and wonder at it's power. It would be nothing like they envisioned.

I wonder what Charlston Heston and the NRA think about this one?
Does it matter? Charleton Heston or the NRA may be involved in lobbying and laws, and get press as convenient demons for the anti-gun crowd, but they don't determine the philosophy that enumerates Inherent Rights.

Al Fakhem
7th Dec 2007, 03:57
I am sure we have the right to bare arms anywhere in the world, although it might be a bit cold for that at times.

Perhaps this thread is about the right to bear arms?

Might help if we are able to communicate effectively what we have on our minds.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Dushan
7th Dec 2007, 04:19
Howard Hughes in Oz:
Previously just about everybody I new had a gun of some description, now the only ones I know are farmers...


And of course the criminals, since they are not required to register:E

Dushan
7th Dec 2007, 04:29
I wonder what Charlston Heston and the NRA think about this one?


We think that it is a crime to steal a legally owned weapon and use it to murder people.

con-pilot
7th Dec 2007, 04:34
Well thought out and written AMF. Of course there will be those here that will wail and lament "Wait, Wait, Wait, this is not correct, you damn Americans are wrong and we know better what your country needs better that you Yanks", but they have been wrong before and will be wrong again. As they are in this matter.

Now for you "guns are bad lot", I am not a member of the NRA. The only weapon I own is a antique (at least for US standards) .22 Cal. rifle made in 1899 and to tell the truth I really don't where the hell it is. (But I qualified on the .38, 357, M-16 and the 12 gage shotgun, so watch out. ;))

Now for you lot outside the US. We hold our rights as given by our Founding Fathers as precious as the English do the Royal Family, in fact a lot more so.

As AMF pointed out, take the Right to Bear Arms away the next step could very well be to take the Freedom of the Press away. Once a Government starts taking Rights away where will it stop?

Sorry, but if it appears that a very strict anti-gun law looks as if it will become law I will go out to a gun show and buy some really heavy weapons and ammunition for them.

Bottom line is that most folks in the US really don't trust the Government. Unlike you folks in Europe and the UK. Heck in the UK you can't even vote for your Prime Minister. Only the party, great system.

Oops, sorry, I forgot we are not allowed to criticize other counties, but everybody else in other countries all over the world can criticize the US government anytime they want. Sorry, how foolish of me.

Oh yes, special thanks that Brain Fade managed to get the Iran thread sin binned. I guess one more example of fair play by the enlightened US bashers. However, it had turned into the old typical "Hamster Wheel".

As this thread is rapidly approaching.

Howard Hughes
7th Dec 2007, 04:42
Once a Government starts taking Rights away where will it stop? Unfortunately not everybody can be trusted with the responsibility that comes a long with a so called 'right'!

Like This - Do That
7th Dec 2007, 05:14
AMF thanks for your post. Well written.

I'll get the 'boilerplates' out of the way first of all:
(1) Been to the USA lots, love it and its many varied peoples;
(2) Love shooting and in fact just yesterday maintained my Army 'first class shot' qual;
(3) I have an opinion about gun control but as Brick et al have suggested it doesn't REALLY matter what I think.

So .....

AMF I haven't been bothered looking up or investigating, so please excuse my ignorance. If - IF - clamour for change became irresistable, how would one of the amendments listed in the Bill of Rights (doesn't matter which one) be amended or even altered so dramatically to render it irrelevant?

Constitutional changes in Australia require passage of a referendum - majority of people and majorities in a majority of states. How might that happen in the 'States?

Dream Land
7th Dec 2007, 05:31
Besides cars, here's another problem:
Doctors vs. Guns in the U.S.
Number of physicians in the US = 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year = 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171 (Source: U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the US = 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) = 1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner = 0.0000188 (Source: U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)
Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Taken from the Benton County News Tribune of November 17, 1999.
Buy a gun and stay away from the doctor's office!
:E

Loose rivets
7th Dec 2007, 05:54
Carrying Concealed Weapon by a citizen, could possibly avert a mass killing?

This is obviously one of the arguments for carrying. Okay, it's a valid argument in a sense, but the policy has many counter-arguments.

First and foremost, most of the places in which these disasters happen, have an absolute ban on the carrying of weapons by the public. Schools in particular, yet a school is the one place where defense of the occupants is the most important thing imaginable. But, it's also the place where a badly aimed shot could do the most harm. The powers that be, have decided against carrying, in, or even near, a school.

Secondly, even if there were a dozen armed solid citizens in the area, the very design of say, a Mall, means that any shot taken could go a tremendous distance within a large and crowded hallway; masses of marble walls to ricochet off without slowing the bullet a great deal. The risk would be huge. Sure, the risk of letting a madman continue firing would be worse by far, but the skill and maturity of the good guy would have to be supreme.

Imagine seeing an AK swinging round towards you with a dozen frightened people behind him. As the killer's glazed eyes locked on to you, delaying the first shot would be very, very hard to do.

Despite this, a couple of citizens who had taken the trouble to keep current on their weapon, could save the day.

Which way do you go? However you write the law, someone's not going to be happy.

There's one other factor. Here, where cowboys and Latinos alike all have guns, my guess is that a local maverick might only last a few seconds.

Does this prove that carrying should be encouraged I wonder?

Blacksheep
7th Dec 2007, 06:58
The point is that the on duty cops arrive AFTER something has happened. Many, many cases show that a (legally) armed civilian or off duty cop have STOPPED what could well have been a multiple killing situation.
Con-pilot....Seattle 1986. Two cops walking into a shopping area to buy burgers glanced in through the glass door of a bank and noticed two masked and armed men robbing the bank. One cop knelt down at the door, opened a mail flap and called on the robbers to surrender. One of the robbers turned and fired at him - the armoured glass door stopping the shot. The cop then shot and killed both robbers. Having called for back-up, the cop with the cold pistol continued to McDonalds and bought two burgers. I was in the nearby launderette at the time. Those guys were as cool as a pair of cucumbers right out of the fridge.

A couple of years later a guy went into a King County gun store to rob it. He just managed to get his sawn-off shotgun out and say "This is a hold-up" before two plain clothes cops, the man behind the counter and another customer had all shot him - at the same time.

boofhead
7th Dec 2007, 07:42
You all remember the report by the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey (Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City)that showed more than half of the guns in private hands were in the USA. Shock horror of course. What the TV and newspapers did not tell you, because it is not part of the propaganda agenda, was the rest of the report.
It included an estimate of civilian gun ownership for many of the world's countries, and it showed "there is no clear relationship between more guns and a higher level of violence".
The report includes a chart that lists the 30 countries with the largest number of civilian-owned firearms. Those with the highest rate of ownership per 100 people include some of the world's safest, most stable democracies, such as Finland, Switzerland, Sweden and Germany.
The director of the Survey company, Keith Krause, noted that low gun ownership goes along with high crime rates in Latin America. Among the countries with the lowest rates of gun ownership were some recently wracked with rising urban violence, such as England and Brazil, and others that have been the scenes of bloody drug violence and guerilla warfare (Colombia).
The study's figures also give a hint about the relationship between the right to gun ownership and other freedoms. Iran, China and Russia, all known for long and violent hostility to political dissent, easily rank in the study's bottom ten for rates of civilian gun ownership.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a deeply held personal conviction, right?

Gnirren
7th Dec 2007, 08:43
But you have it all wrong people, the system didn't fail because of the right to bear arms. The system failed because the people who where shot in the mall where themselves not armed.

If this system of self-protection had worked the way the gunslingers say it should then these shoppers would, upon being confronted with said disgruntled youth have unholstered their own weapon and shot him in defence.

So the people who died have themselves to blame... right?

Personally I see no flaw in this system. If you want to have the right to be armed, then just make sure you do. If you don't and you get shot, well then you have yourself to blame. :rolleyes:

green granite
7th Dec 2007, 08:48
Tigs, and KC, I didn't answer your point(s) because it was irrelevant to my point, which was that killing people with vehicles seems to be perfectly acceptable to you because they are a "necessity" whereas killing people with guns is not as they are not a "necessity.

lordsummerisle
7th Dec 2007, 09:05
" We actually we had no say in the matter, it was decided by the huggy fluffs in power at the time. It in no way stops criminals from getting guns and shooting each other."

Huggy fluffs? First time I've heard the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major described as such

green granite
7th Dec 2007, 09:51
The killing at Dunblaine was done by a psychopath, who, had the police vetting procedure been carried out correctly, would not have obtained a firearms certificate. The then government took the easy way out by acceding to the shouting of a small minority of people to ban hand guns, rather than tighten up police procedures which would have cost money, an anathema to the government. That is IMHO being huggy fluff.

BillHicksRules
7th Dec 2007, 10:35
GG,

Are you being thick or obtuse?

Your attempt to muddy the waters by bringing cars into the equation is logically flawed on two major levels.

Firstly, cars are not "designed" to kill. In fact much time and money is spent in making the chances of them doing so less and less. Guns ARE "designed" to kill. In fact it is their sole purpose.

Secondly, the contention that since people die in car accidents nothing should be done in terms of preventing pre-meditated mass murder is either so overwhelmingly stupid that I am surprised you are able to even turn on your PC and post in here, or shows such horrifying desire to see more tragedies like this that I am giving serious consideration to you being the first person in here to go on my Ignore list.

BHR

bnt
7th Dec 2007, 10:53
If I may get philosophical for a second, i have a question: what is a gun? I mean, I know what they are in the physical sense: I've fired them, and cleaned them afterwards.

In an abstract physical sense, however, a gun is a tool that lets you apply force, remotely. You pull the trigger and a little bomb goes off, imparting a massive amount of energy to a small bullet. That bullet than carries that energy to whatever you pointed the gun at, with no discrimination. When the bullet strikes, it releases that energy in to that target, as it is designed to do.

It is an awful lot of power to place in the hands of a person. I know how seriously gun safety is taken, but I don't think it goes far enough: it doesn't consider the question of whether a person should have that kind of firepower in the first place.

I know I don't, in my current situation, because I'd be more of a danger to myself and others than to any attacker. I'd feel differently if I was in a war zone, of course, but I'd also question what makes an area a war zone in the first place. I must be one of those pinko liberals, since I can imagine a world where I would not need a gun, or a knife, or even my fists: a world with no requirement to apply force to other people in any way. :\

Davaar
7th Dec 2007, 10:53
Should you move to Scotland, Blacksheep, society will let you indulge not only the bare elbows and arms and the singlet, but on wearing the kilt the immemorial right to bare knees as well.

Buster Hyman
7th Dec 2007, 11:27
Well, I'm sure the Iranians will be happy to read this. Perhaps they take it as "their right" to bear thermonuclear weapons?

;):ugh:;):ugh:

larssnowpharter
7th Dec 2007, 11:36
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t295/larssnowpharter/NunsWithGuns-1.jpg

Howard Hughes
7th Dec 2007, 11:43
Do you mean Thermonucelar Buster?;)

Buster Hyman
7th Dec 2007, 11:54
:ugh: Scary, innit Howard.:uhoh:

Sallyann1234
7th Dec 2007, 12:06
Doctors vs. Guns in the U.S.
Number of physicians in the US = 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year = 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171 (Source: U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the US = 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) = 1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner = 0.0000188 (Source: U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)
Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
A totally erroneous, biased, and pointless comparison.

1. Physicians are designed to save lives, and generally do.
The true figure should therefore be (accidental deaths minus intended saved lives), which will be a negative quantity.
2. Only accidental gun deaths are counted. Where are the deliberate ones?

Dushan
7th Dec 2007, 12:37
First and foremost, most of the places in which these disasters happen, have an absolute ban on the carrying of weapons by the public. Schools in particular,...

And that is precisely why they happen there. The cowardly criminal knows that he will be the only one armed.

Ok there is an odd one, who is totally stupid, and goes to a gun store to rob it, as in Blacksheep's story. Look what happened to him.

Tony Hirst
7th Dec 2007, 12:40
Unfortunately not everybody can be trusted with the responsibility that comes a long with a so called 'right'!
Absolutely...however we all have to accept that in order to prevent society being disabled with asinine legislation that not every aspect of our lives can be rendered risk free. In order to have the advantages that a free society affords, there will be some shit stuff that is inexorably tied in with the deal.

I'm not pro-gun, far from it. But like most things, the solution to the problem is much more subtle and requires much more work than simply banning stuff.
Well, I'm sure the Iranians will be happy to read this. Perhaps they take it as "their right" to bear thermonuclear weapons?
More to the point we don't have the right to stop them! If we are scared, well then we should have thought about that before throwing our weight around.

Dushan
7th Dec 2007, 12:48
More to the point we don't have the right to stop them! If we are scared, well then we should have thought about that before throwing our weight around.

Don't we? You wouldn't give a gun to a guy on your street who runs around with a kitchen knife and threatens to kill a friend of yours who lives a few houses away. As you say, life is not risk free, but there is a difference between a statistical risk and knowingly giving a weapon of mass destruction to someone who has threatened to use it.

Buster Hyman
7th Dec 2007, 12:59
If it doesn't directly affect you, then its only bigger statistics with WMD.:(

You wouldn't give a gun to a guy on your street who runs around with a kitchen knife and threatens to kill a friend of yours who lives a few houses away.
But you'd happily give it to a 19 year old? Besides, doesn't the guy with the knife have a right to bear arms too???:confused:

Dushan
7th Dec 2007, 13:10
But you'd happily give it to a 19 year old? Besides, doesn't the guy with the knife have a right to bear arms too???

Mankind has given guns (or equivelant) to 19 year olds for centuries, and sent them into battle. So no, I would have no problem with that. Even less so if the 19 year old has been using guns since he was 9. Takes away the "mistique" factor.
As for the mad man - no, he has no right to bear arms. By threatening others he has lost it.

Buster Hyman
7th Dec 2007, 13:20
As for the mad man - no, he has no right to bear arms. By threatening others he has lost it.
Ok, fair enough. I'll bow to your greater knowledge of the "Bill of Rights" and assume that you are allowed to bear arms...unless you threaten others. (I'm sure there's a caveat somewhere) Cool.:rolleyes:

Oh, and what war was this latest 19 year old fighting?:confused:

Dushan
7th Dec 2007, 13:23
Buster,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10!

Taildragger67
7th Dec 2007, 13:50
IMHO, what is interesting about the Second Amendment is that the drafters very specifically included a reason why they were proposing the Amendment ("A well regulated militia... free state"). They did not have to do that.

These guys were educated. They knew what they were doing. I suggest that it was to indicate that, when a "well regulated militia" was in fact no longer needed (as the nation matured and was therefore able to fight off those pesky imperialist British who were making nasty noises again when the Amendment was made), then the measure needed to assist a "well regulated militia" - ie. the right to bear arms - would itself be redundant.

Indeed it could be suggested that if someone now sought to set up a "well regulated militia", complete with the arms they are curently apparently allowed to bear, within the United States, they would be quickly set to rights by police/NG/armed forces. Hence the clear redundancy of the provision in the modern age.

Can anyone please tell me if a definition of 'arms' has ever been established by US authorities? That is, (the NRA aside) could certain types of weapons (eg. assault weapons) be banned, leaving other 'arms' to be freely carried about by the citizenry?

GearDown&Locked
7th Dec 2007, 14:02
http://pizdaus.com/small/P9ZqUqmpU12G.jpeg

BillHicksRules
7th Dec 2007, 14:04
Tony,

"however we all have to accept that in order to prevent society being disabled with asinine legislation that not every aspect of our lives can be rendered risk free. In order to have the advantages that a free society affords, there will be some shit stuff that is inexorably tied in with the deal."

Are you and Green Granite having a competition to see who can produce the most asinine reasons for not having strict gun control?

Let me remind you that guns are DESIGNED as weapons. They are meant to kill. They should be tied up in legislation to make them risk free for those who choose to have nothing to do with them. They are not a bag of Peanuts with a warning on them stating "May Contain Nuts".

The US is not a free society. There are rules. In this case the rules have failed the 8 people murdered.

BHR

Davaar
7th Dec 2007, 14:47
Buster, in another thread I once told of a gentleman who joined the RCAF in WW2, was trained as an air gunner, promoted sergeant, posted to England to a Lancaster squadron in Bomber Command, shot down two German fighters in one raid over Germany, on return to base was commissioned Pilot Officer in the field, ended his tour of 30+ raids as a flight lieutenant and Squadron Senior Gunnery Officer, was sent back to Canada for pilot training, was told half-way through flying training that the RCAF now had so many pilots they were flying jeeps and he was really surplus, was released from further service, and enrolled in Law School (Dalhousie). When he enrolled at Dalhousie he was 19.

P.S. He found the academic life rather quiet and dropped out. He went to the US West and became a cowboy, then a deputy sheriff. Later he completed his studies.

Track Coastal
7th Dec 2007, 15:18
Please comment on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29

The resultant ban on firearms designed for 'human killing'* (assault rifles, sub-machine guns and pump shotguns) has been a beautiful thing in this country. Sure you can buy a Glock 9, Bolt action Winchester 243, or an over and under shotty for target/skeet/hunting but you are not getting the licence until you can prove your bona fides and intent (a very laborious process).

*I've shot the L1A1/L1A2 (FN), M16/AR15, Sterling, M60, Minimi, Steyr, SA80 and AK47 and these are designed to kill PEOPLE nothing more and should only be in the hands of those in uniform.

**Further - regarding your ridiculous comment regarding 'what war was this 19 year old fighting', I fired my first round from an assault rifle at 17, and I reckon if I swung that barrel from down range the range seargeant would have shot me with the Browning on his belt.

Chimbu chuckles
7th Dec 2007, 15:22
Two self evident truths about gun ownership/right to bear arms etc.

1/. No gun control laws anywhere on the planet no matter how stringent will stop feckwits and nutters shooting innocents as in Dunblaine/Port Arthur/Columnbine etc.

2/. No amount of those types of crimes should impact in the slightest way on a responsible, law abiding citizen's rights to own a gun of whatever type.

I am constantly amazed at the arrogance of, usually left leaning, people that feel they have the right to impose their wishes on others. If my hobby/interest is shooting targets/hunting or whatever and I persue that hobby/interest in a manner that doesn't impinge on your life in any way, shape or form then get the **** on with your life and stay the **** out of mine...PERIOD.

While I am an EX gun owner (and someone who has carried concealed in a country where that was deemed reasonable) I still have the licences..plenty of mates have guns and I still enjoy shooting on the rare occasion I get to...if I want to go out and buy a weapon of whatever type I, as a responsible law abiding citizen, should have that opportunity...even to the extent of a full auto style weapon if blazing away at targets is my idea of a fun way to expend disposable income on a sunny day.

It is just that simple.

Track Coastal
7th Dec 2007, 15:27
...excellent, stay North of Torres Strait thanks with whatever makes you feel manly that sends a brass projectile designed to kill someone (eg assault rifles, sub machine guns).

If you want to rid Australia of its feral pig and cat problem with a bolt action rifle, fill yer boots. If its feral its in peril IMHO.

Ever shot an M60 or Minimi? It is quite an experience (propelling a kill round at 3 a second). Why any govt would let civilians brandish such weapons is beyond me and a sign of cowardice to gun/nutter lobbyists.

Track Coastal
7th Dec 2007, 15:50
I'm going to do what with these?

http://www.eastcoastfirearms.com/

http://www.nextag.com/m16-rifle-for-sale/search-html

B Sousa
7th Dec 2007, 16:21
doesn't the guy with the knife have a right to bear arms too???

Remember, never take a Knife to a Gunfight........

Funny when many folks visit beautiful? La$ Vega$, one of the things that they want to do? Go to a shooting range, maybe shoot Machine Guns. They are allowed under proper license here.

Dream Land
7th Dec 2007, 16:24
Did anyone watch what happened in New Orleans after Katrina? :mad:

Flash2001
7th Dec 2007, 16:27
Wouldn't you like to live in a country where everyone had the right to bear arms and no one felt the need to?

After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again!

boofhead
7th Dec 2007, 16:28
The second amendment to the US constitution refers to the militia. Looking up the definition of the militia you see that it is every male between 17 and 45 (there were changes made 50 years or so back but they did not change the original definition much. Maybe they added women?). The law says that every member of the militia must provide himself with a weapon (rifles or muskets/shotguns for the soldier and pistols for officers) plus a reasonable amount of ammunition. The type of weapon should be suitable for military use, so large bore weapons and even machine guns are legal under this law.
So you can see in fact that every US resident (who was or wanted to become a citizen) must have a weapon, like it or not, and there was even something written about regular practice too.
Those who do not comply are breaking the law.
Look it up. Read the Federalist Papers, they are illuminating. (The Aus constitution was based on the US model, but they chose not to include the amendments? Why?)
Doesn't this make the whole argument moot? (using that word in the US sense again).
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, debates of 1776

Dushan
7th Dec 2007, 16:29
I'm going to do what with these?

Take them apart, put them together. Admire the engineering, design, and craftsmanship. Do the same thing you do with your Nikon, Bolex, Leica. Your Rolex or Minox. How about a Curta or an Odhner? A Halda Speed Pilot, Tripmaster, or Twinmater. How about a slide rule. Some of you may know what these thing are. Some will have to Google. There are many things man had made and collected that is no longer used in it's intended form.

Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot have as long as I use it in a lawful manner

G-CPTN
7th Dec 2007, 16:32
Has't th' had a Hasselblad lad?

(Rolleiflex owner)

Dushan
7th Dec 2007, 16:36
Has't th' had a Hasselblad lad?

I am sure there are a few I've missed.

Taildragger67
7th Dec 2007, 16:37
Chimbu,

Mate I agree with your sentiment - I too have (legally and licensed) blasted away with various bits of kit.

Problem is, as with so many things, some people wreck it for the rest of us. Hence society as a whole (via its elected representatives) has sought to put limits on.

It's no different from cars - there is a reason why there are speed limits. Now you operate a several-hundred-tonne aircraft regularly going at high speed and have to regularly prove your ability to do so, so I expect your reaction times and way of thinking would also be attuned to driving a car pretty quickly; but many are not, so we have 60km/h limits. A friend of mine has a high-perf car; he takes it to Oran Park when he gets The Need for SpeedTM.

Thing is, it's easier to hide a rifle, than a Ferrari; hence some stronger rules might be needed.

You're right, rules won't fully deter a really determined nutter, but they make it harder; so some of the not-quite-so-determined give up. Moreover, bans might make it harder to get hold of a piece, further foiling some wallies. Also, a change in sentiment can have an effect - witness the attitude to drink-driving since RBT came in and the immediate and dramatic effect it had on road deaths.

A compromise would be to have certain weapons securely locked up at facilities where those who want to, could go and loose off a few rounds. The weapons would not be 'in the community' but would still be available to enthusiasts. You don't see too many light aircraft taxying out from garages along the Pacific Highway, they're kept at Bankstown or Camden or some such other dedicated facility.

You say that 2/. No amount of those types of crimes should impact in the slightest way on a responsible, law abiding citizen's rights to own a gun of whatever type. Problem is, in many areas, the actions of criminals have prompted limits on responsible, law abiding citizens. That's just the way it is.
:hmm:

Track Coastal
7th Dec 2007, 16:39
How about a slide rule

The round one? All the time...something to with NM and minutes when HAL doesn't seem to make sense ;)

Dushan
7th Dec 2007, 16:56
Probably someone who wants to be able to walk down a shopping centre (or school) in the USA without getting shot down.

I said in a lawful manner.

FakePilot
7th Dec 2007, 17:17
Blah Blah Blah Blah.

How about talking solutions other than the obvious two?

Like:

How many private legally owned machine guns in the US have been used for murder? By this I mean guns owned by civilians legally.

I like playing with guns but I don't like people getting murdered by guns.
So, regulate regulate jump-thru-hoops and you get the toy that sprays lead. Stepped certification and so on. Psych eval good idea.

Nah, more fun to argue stupid points like criminals buy guns at gun shows and cars are deadlier than guns.

ArthurR
7th Dec 2007, 17:34
Fakepilot, see where you are coming from, I used to like playing with guns too, just for vermin control, the right to bare arms (not a spelling mistake) in the UK, means you can wear a T-Shirt, Has not stopped the criminals though :mad:, read the news.

B Sousa
7th Dec 2007, 17:43
the actions of criminals have prompted limits on responsible, law abiding citizens.

'Prompted", not necessarily, it could be the result of the many "Lemmings" in Society that do not have what it takes to rid the world of those who infringe on the rights of people to live free without fear of becoming a victom.

Loose rivets
7th Dec 2007, 18:29
I do not belieeeeeeeeeve that anyone would go into a gun shop in America to rob it...well, I do believe it, but I find it hard to believe that the Darwin mechanism is so alive and well.

Here, the gun shop owners spend most of their waking days just dreaming about someone daft enough to do that, coming into their shop. They fairly lust after the chance to blaze away at such an intruder.

Deep into the night they polish their sears with jeweler's rouge, and lightly oil every bit that is likely to move. Then they put their piece under the pillow...and dream.

When they rise, they wear their guns to the breakfast table, and when finally behind the counter, the safety is off, the hammer is back and the only thing that stops them from shooting their nut off is the previous night's workmanship. With this mind-set, you can see how it would be unwise to try to rob this man.

brickhistory
7th Dec 2007, 18:40
Was it just me or did Loose Rivets post read like it should have an accompanying 'adult' movie soundtrack?











"Somebody order a pizza?" Bow-chicca-bow-bow...............

Tony Hirst
7th Dec 2007, 19:07
Dushan,

Re nukes, I don't disagree with the point I think you're trying to make. But ultimately scientific knowledge is not something you can or should prevent people from having. Dangerous knowledge is in the public domain. The capability is inevitable. The motivation for use is however well within our control.

BillHicksRules,

Well yes, guns are ridiculous devices. The point is that banning things out of the reach of determined people doesn't work without draconian measures, which I have a problem with. There are usually undesirable side effects in law and society too. I'm sure the solution lies elsewhere.

Also America is very free country. But for the word "freedom" to have any meaning you have define it as a balance of rights and responsibilities. Absolute freedom is a paradox and useless as a debating device.

ArthurR
7th Dec 2007, 19:11
Tony good statement " But for the word "freedom" to have any meaning you have define it as a balance of rights and responsibilities. Absolute freedom is a paradox and useless as a debating device. "problem is now people want the rights with no resposibilities

Life's a Beech
7th Dec 2007, 20:16
It seems that in the mall where this happened guns were banned (http://instapundit.com/archives2/012596.php), like many of the recent mass shootings in the USA. Thus none of the victims was able to fight back, which in many parts of the USA would be unusual.

B Sousa
7th Dec 2007, 22:58
Thus none of the victims was able to fight back

You may find that in most places where these morons go off the deep end, its going to be a place where guns are banned. They want to be successful in thier endeavors.

I still remember many years ago as a young COP in Sacramento California. We had a Bar "Pine Cove" which was frequented by mainly off duty cops. Directly below was a Liquor Store. "Harry" the bartender had a buzzer from the store if there was a problem. One night the store was held up by some really stupid folks and you guessed it. They probably have never seen so many guns pointed in their direction. Most all with someone thinking, "make my day". Give credit as they went to jail instead of the Coroners Office.

Bluesteel705
7th Dec 2007, 23:08
So by the logic in the first few posts am I to infer that Americans wont be commenting on issues that are not 'Internal' to the USA?

And no, I not being inflammatory, I am being serious.

B Sousa
7th Dec 2007, 23:21
BS705
Do you have a specific question or am I missing something??

FakePilot
7th Dec 2007, 23:26
I think the British wanting to ban firearms in the US is one reason we have the Second Amendment to begin with. :}
Careful, if you complain too much about US having guns there might be a second Second Amendment.

brickhistory
7th Dec 2007, 23:32
I think BS's question was mainly directed at me since I played the "no vote, no opinion" card.

Absolutely comment and give your opinion on what you think the problem is. Just be courteous enough to not tell us what and how to do something. In this case, gun control.

I will do the same. I will be free to offer my opinion, but I will never (hopefully) be rude enough to tell someone from another country how they should handle an internal matter. Because my opinion will count for nada in that instance.


Or most for that matter.................

BOFH
7th Dec 2007, 23:55
If you want to kill twenty random people in London tomorrow, it's easy - just *** * *** **** * *** ******. For more hits, you could ****** ** ** * ***** ****** and *** a *** **** *** ***** ** * *** *** ***. Each of these options should cost less than 100 pounds. Call me stingy.

With jerks like these, who want to be 'famous', perhaps a leaf can be taken out of the blog of Scott Adams (The Dilbert chap), whose brother suggested that suicide bombers be referred to in future as 'dingleberries'. The cousins do things differently, as they are winnits here. Bless.

Therefore, we need a covenant between the major news media, so that the announcement goes out that the winnit who performed the shooting will have his organs (especially the genitals, described in great detail) auctioned on Ebay, and that his name will be retrospectively altered to 'Nimwad'.

The scary thing is that someone might actually want to be remembered as 'Nimwad'.

BOFH

White Bear
8th Dec 2007, 01:31
What is it about the English in particular that makes them feel they have the right to run the world, and to look down their long noses at any who would dare to walk their own path, no matter how successfully, is beyond me. :ugh:

Don’t you remember our fathers and grand-fathers fought a war to give you and I the right to make these decisions for ourselves?

No society is perfect, and as a society we must live with the consequences of our decisions. What is most important is, we are free to make them.:ok:
Regards,
White Bear.

Blacksheep
8th Dec 2007, 02:06
Blacksheep had occasion to wear the kilt quite often Davaar, in my official capacity as a piper in the Pipes and Drums of No 1 Bomber Group. I can testify that in addition to bare knees (to protect against the Spong as the Goons explained) it enables one to go bare-bummed as well. To stay on topic concerning the right to bare or bear arms, the Great Highland Bagpipe (as opposed to the harmless Chamber Pipe) is of course, classified as a weapon of war.

pigboat
8th Dec 2007, 02:33
..the Great Highland Bagpipe (as opposed to the harmless Chamber Pipe) is of course, classified as a weapon of war.
...And were banned for a good long time by some English king, were they not? :p

G-CPTN
8th Dec 2007, 02:35
Billy Connolly has done a marvellous sketch describing the Highland Pipes leading men into battle.

TheDesertFerret
8th Dec 2007, 02:39
My friend Brickhistory.

How will we know the difference between you "commenting" on non US affairs and "telling" them how to run their countries?

If you intertwine these two nuances with being "literal" and "tongue-in-cheek" then I shall be truly foxed (low IQ - sorry)

Please use italics and coloured lettering for my benefit.

:confused:

tdf :)

brickhistory
8th Dec 2007, 02:44
Commenting:

"I cannot believe those poofy Brits banned ALL guns because of the actions of one loon."

Instructing/telling:

"You Brits should allow gun ownership for law-abiding citizens."


Capiche?



or however it's spelled.....

TheDesertFerret
8th Dec 2007, 02:50
Righto Brickhistory.

Got that thanks.

Just scoured Tigs2 original post - didn't observe any "telling" but lots of questions inviting a discussion.

Therefore I must assume your pre-emptive strike was an avuncular piece of best practise thread guidance.

Good work sir.

Carry on.

brickhistory
8th Dec 2007, 02:53
Good work sir.

It did seem to wind him up.............

Tigs2: It is just that continuous pompous arse type of statement you always come out with that always degenerates threads in to yank bashing threads.

TheDesertFerret
8th Dec 2007, 02:56
Hang on Brick - I'm busy looking up the correct spelling of "capiche" as a feeble rejoinder just in case you make a good point.

Give me more time please.

(Actually there IS a sentence in Tigs2 post that could be construed as telling but, in the context of the rest of the post, I think this is merely a missing question mark at the end of the sentence).

brickhistory
8th Dec 2007, 02:58
just in case you make a good point.

Check my posts from back in April. I think I had one then........

Airfreddy
8th Dec 2007, 02:59
People kill, not guns it is that simple.

If that kid wasn't all drugged up from the liberal psycho wacho doctors here who want to drug everyone and everything this probably wouldn't have happened.

If more people had guns in that mall he probably wouldn't have had the guts to go there.

Every citizen in this country should be armed

I enjoy freedom thank you

Empty Cruise
8th Dec 2007, 09:59
"I would never be so rude as to tell another country how to handle their internal affairs"???

That sounds remarkably like China - or Zimbabwe. Oh, or the US after the Chinese became our best trading buddies.

There are those whom we would never tell how to handle their internal affairs, and there are those whom we'd just invade.

"...A well regulated militia..."
Yeah, right... whatever :mad:

Buster Hyman
8th Dec 2007, 10:52
Dushan...Nice counting. Good for you.:ok:

Davaar...My mistake, I didn't realise that this particular 19 year old, a product of the 1980's, was on par with the 19 year olds of the 40's. Point taken...:rolleyes:

Track Coastal...It speaks for itself doesn't it?

What is it about the English in particular that makes them feel they have the right to run the world, and to look down their long noses at any who would dare to walk their own path, no matter how successfully, is beyond me.

"Pot to kettle, Pot to kettle, come in Kettle!":rolleyes:

Track Coastal
8th Dec 2007, 11:32
Sorry I missed construed your post and thought you opposed the (correct IMHO) decision by JW Howard to ban assault rifles etc in Australia. Humble apologies:\

"Pot to kettle, Pot to kettle, come in Kettle!"
LOL:D

brickhistory
8th Dec 2007, 12:47
"I would never be so rude as to tell another country how to handle their internal affairs"???

That sounds remarkably like China - or Zimbabwe. Oh, or the US after the Chinese became our best trading buddies.

There are those whom we would never tell how to handle their internal affairs, and there are those whom we'd just invade.

Last time i checked, I wasn't a country or in charge of one. Therefore, I don't speak for everyone in or the governement of my country.

Buster Hyman
8th Dec 2007, 12:54
Thought you might of...;)

BenThere
8th Dec 2007, 17:08
The legitimate purpose of a gun is not to kill.

The legitimate purpose of a gun is to defend yourself from those who might wish to kill you.

TheDesertFerret
8th Dec 2007, 17:30
The legitimate purpose of a gun is not to kill.

The legitimate purpose of a gun is to defend yourself from those who might wish to kill you.

Is that a view shared by those who might wish to kill you?

BenThere
8th Dec 2007, 17:37
It's not a view but a truth, to be shared by anyone in any circumstance.

Davaar
8th Dec 2007, 17:40
It is true, Buster, that circumstances alter cases just as noses alter faces, and I did not intend to go all po-faced, but "society" seems (a) not to encourage youth to get up and go, but also (b) deny it the opportunity.

The little Scottish town where my parents lived is splattered with plaques to mark the births of captain this and captain that. As lads pre- or early-teens they were off at "the fishin'", first mate of a clipper at 19, master at 21, owner at 25 (one clipper was the famed "Thermopylae", as I recall), and fleet owner at 30.

Read the life of Nelson. Clausewitz joined his Prussian regiment aged 11, and was in active campaign and battle a year or so later and continuously for the next twenty years.

The talk here now is to keep young men in high school until they are 19. Doing what? And then? What do they know then? What can they do then? At 19, fifty years ago, some of them would have been time-served journeymen and able to rake in that pot of gold for fixing things that here, and I gather in the UK, is often the preserve of the immigrant from Germany, Italy and Poland.

TheDesertFerret
8th Dec 2007, 17:45
May I postulate that "those who wish to kill you" will view a legitimate use of a gun is "to kill you".

BenThere
8th Dec 2007, 17:57
Yes. But they have ascertained by then that it is now my wish to kill them and we can both rely on our legitimate expectations.

Davaar
8th Dec 2007, 18:14
In the 1920s the annual manoeuvres of the Highland Light Infantry were known as the "wappenshaw" (weapon show).

The Act 64, 1457, of the 14th Parliament of James II of Scotland addresses that very topic under "Weapon-Schawinges, Fute-ball, Golfe, and Archers".

Weapon-schawinges are to be held four times in the year and "Fute-ball and Golfe be utterly cryed downe". At the weapon-schawings every man is to "fchutte fex fhottes at the leaft", and on default to be fined as prescribed. Money was to be provided for refreshmnent of all those who turned up at the range ("bowe-markes"). Foot-ball and golf were to bre punished. "And that all men, that is within fiftie, and paft twelve zeirs, fall ufe fchutting".

The fute-ball and the golfe were to be punished by law.

There is no need for navel gazing about the Founding Fathers or the Second Amendment, or to go all twisted about "dangerous instrumentalities".

Ultimately the defence of the realm and all those in it depend on the willingness and skill of men from 12 to 50 in an organised or unorganised militia.

tony draper
8th Dec 2007, 18:39
Of course once as a society you become fat rich and lazy and the wearing of big boots and toting sword and pike beneath your dignity you can always hire mercinaries to defend your realm,see Hengist and Horsa.:E

TheDesertFerret
8th Dec 2007, 19:09
Thanks BenThere - that clarifies your views. Then lets amend your earlier observation accordingly:

The legitimate purpose of a gun is not to kill.

The legitimate purpose of a gun is to defend yourself from those who might wish to kill you.

However, unfortunately, be aware, those who wish to kill you view a legitimate use of a gun is to kill you.

Everybody happy with that now?

Loose rivets
8th Dec 2007, 19:25
What is it about the English in particular that makes them feel they have the right to run the world,Mmmm...cos we got used to it after so many years of doing it :E.



Allan Dix. Search for him in the "Where are they now" Forum. He was found I believe.

ArthurR
8th Dec 2007, 20:01
Fake pilot, I think I have the answer to your comment on thread 122, you still owe us the tax (Tea), if we ban fire arms in the US, then we can send all the hoodies over, get the taxes back, and cure the problems in the UK at the same time. We are not allowed to at the moment, while you still have the right to bear arms, if we send them over now, they may get hurt, and that upsets the PC brigade. :ok:

corsair
8th Dec 2007, 20:12
Always this debate, the reality is that banning guns only prevents law abiding citizens getting their hands on them, criminals and those determined to obtain one don't worry about gun laws. So draconian gun laws don't reduce gun crime in a free society. I think that lesson should have been learned by all by now.

I just got back from taking part in a TV re-construction of an unsolved shooting for a crimewatch type programme. It was a cold case re-opened. The irony was the the same night there were two non fatal shootings in the city. A fact that barely gets the headlines anymore. This in a country, Ireland, that has extremely tough gun laws. Proof, if it was ever needed that gun crime and gun laws have little or no bearing on the other.

However the situation as it pertains to the USA is quite different. There simply is too much freedom to bear arms. Apologies to those Americans here who know their rights. But we all know the 2nd amendment is a fig leaf the gun lobby cling to. It is quite obvious what the founding Fathers intended and many gun enthusiasts in the US use that reasoning to claim that they own guns to defend their freedom from a potentially oppressive government. The irony of course is that the USA is one of the freeist countries in the world so they hardly need guns to protect it in the first place. But that is a chicken and egg argument.

But the genie is out of the bottle in the US now. Draconian gun laws in the US would be the mark of an oppressive government or one that has no wish to be re-elected. Nothing will change in terms of gun laws in the meantime therefore.

In fact it is obvious these killings were copycat in nature. A loser wanting to go out with a bang. There will be more of these as long as there are losers with psychological problems who have access to guns. A sad fact of life, particularly in the USA but not restricted to that country.

I never watched 'Bowling for Columbine' right through, Can't stand Michael Moore and his simplified pop socialism. But the one part I did watch, I think captured the nub of the problem and it is not guns or gun availability that is the issue. You might remember the scene where he visited the city in Canada within sight of Detroit. There he spent time opening the unlocked front doors of people to prove the point that they feared crime so little that their front doors were left unlocked. The comparison to Detroit across the lake was stark. I think he also stated that Canadians were enthusiastic gun owners too, just like across the border but gun crime was much less.

What I took away from that is that the problem is less to do with guns than the kind of society America has become. Focussing on guns does nothing to solve the underlying issues. I think many Americans believe this too.

Guns are red herring.

BillHicksRules
8th Dec 2007, 20:22
BenThere,

"The legitimate purpose of a gun is not to kill.

The legitimate purpose of a gun is to defend yourself from those who might wish to kill you."

BY KILLING THEM!!!

Therefore making the legitimate purpose of a gun to kill.

Therefore you logic is false.

Cheers and thanks for playing

BHR

brickhistory
8th Dec 2007, 20:35
The legitimate purpose of a gun is to defend yourself from those who might wish to kill you."

BY KILLING THEM!!!

If need be and you do it right otherwise it tends to get messy.....................


In that situation, there is a clear delineation of whose 'rights' are foremost.

BenThere
8th Dec 2007, 21:02
Interestingly, I grew up on the Detroit side of the river Michael Moore was pointing to, in the heart of the inner city, and now live on the very edge of that city where I don't feel a particular need to lock my doors just like those Windsor Canadians.

Nevertheless, I do keep my loaded Kimber .45 Pro Carry II at the bedside, and almost always carry it whenever I'm compelled to venture into the city.

I've never shot anyone, and if I have my way I'll never have to. Most of my neighbors are armed and they know I am. I think break-in specialists (thugs)know it, too. This system seems to work pretty well, hence we aren't obsessed with locking our doors, and there is virtually zero crime around us. But if someone does enter my sphere with ill intent, I will do my bit to maintain our system. Another facet of it is that, as an airline pilot, I leave my wife 15 or so nights at home each month, I want her to have a chance to defend herself should the system break down.

So, BHR, the legitimate purpose of my weapon is not to kill, but solely to defend against me or my wife being killed. Your logic is false.

BenThere
8th Dec 2007, 21:39
Yes, it's true. It was a primary reason I picked this area to live in. I live in a safe, well patrolled community with rule of law. Unlike Detroit proper.

As a side note, one payoff of being in a safe area is, while property values in the Detroit area have fallen off a cliff recently, here they are lower than they were, but have held up much better than they have all around the city. For some reason people will always choose to live where it is safe, and to send their children to good schools.

Edited to add: Sorry about the double post. I was responding to Desert Ferret, whose post was deleted for some reason. Perhaps mods didn't like him proposing that self-defense in the form of guns might be the solution to the world's problems.

TheDesertFerret
8th Dec 2007, 21:55
Sorry BenThere - I deleted my post as i didn't think it wasn't helpful.

I must confess that I was shocked as what you guys accept as a status quo.

I'm new around here.

brickhistory
8th Dec 2007, 23:05
I must confess that I was shocked as what you guys accept as a status quo.


And that would work both ways. I am amazed at the countless posts regarding all manner of crime - teenage 'hoodies' menacing pretty much anyone they want, rampant burglary, other violent crimes - and a judicial and penal system that seems to be mired in permanent slow that seems to be the lot of the UK.

Now whether that's accurate or not, I cannot say. But from the majority of posts on these subjects from UK posters, it seems to be. I would be boiling mad and trying like he11 to get things changed if I were a citizen. Yet, it seems to be accepted as status quo.

My experiences visiting have been marvelous and not a whiff of trouble. Was I just lucky?

West Coast
8th Dec 2007, 23:32
"Therefore making the legitimate purpose of a gun to kill"


I have a number of weapons BHR. They are in a fire proof safe (I live in fire territory) that is located away from the main residence. I no longer keep ammunition in the household. I have yet to kill anyone with my personal weapons. I was known in the past to shoot up paper targets. They didn't represent anything other than what they were. The whole drill was precision, not to fine tune my aim for household combat.

I'm trying to apply your definition to my situation. Teddy Kennedy has a better chance (and track record) of killing with his car than I do with my weapons. I know I'm expanding the scope of things with the last comment, but given we are playing semantics with the definition of a weapon I didn't think anyone would mind.

lordsummerisle
8th Dec 2007, 23:34
Ben There,

Not at all lucky, more likely what most people encounter day to day here, though too many people on here especially try to talk down the country and make out that we are all living in fear. Not the case and really no worse than it has ever been, always been criminal elements, and always will be, but if you worried about what might happen would never leave the house or get in a car.

brickhistory
9th Dec 2007, 00:06
Ben There,

Not at all lucky, more likely what most people encounter day to day here,

lordsummerisle, I believe this one was in reply to my post not ben's, but you made exactly my point.

Many here are making the assumption that the US and its cities, towns, villages, farms, streets, etc. are nothing but an armed camp.

It's not. Granted there are places I won't go without an infantry squad as back up along with a concealed weapon, but there many more places where I've never given it a second thought. It's a pretty good country to live and even visit.

Not unlike your country I would imagine. It's just that here, I have the choice regarding a legally concealed weapon.

Two's in
9th Dec 2007, 02:37
Gun Death - an equal opportunity program. This was yesterday in Georgia(Saturday) just to prove that age and income are no barrier to violent termination. Excellent "but he was a druggie anyway" twist at the end, proving it's always best to get your retalitation in first.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2007/12/07/brunswick1207.html

Brunswick —- Authorities are trying to determine whether a 2-year-old girl caused the shooting death of a man.
Curtis Gabriel Collins, 22, died after being shot in the head at a home about 8:30 p.m. Tuesday, police said.
Witnesses told police Collins was sitting on a sofa when the child grabbed at a gun that was sitting on a table in the room, causing the gun to fire.
But Glynn County Coroner Jimmy Durden says a medical examiner from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation has withheld a ruling on whether the death was an accident or homicide until police complete their investigation.
The medical examiner recommended additional forensics tests, Durden said.
The gun likely will be examined to determine whether it malfunctioned or whether a child would be able to pull the trigger.
Collins had previous convictions for possession of cocaine and obstruction of an officer, according to police records.

brickhistory
9th Dec 2007, 02:45
Two year old.....loaded gun on the table.......






Darwinism.



Next............

B Sousa
9th Dec 2007, 03:21
The comparison to Detroit across the lake was stark. I think he also stated that Canadians were enthusiastic gun owners too, just like across the border but gun crime was much less.

Put this in a different frame. I think you will find the difference is that you are talking DETROIT. You may find the answer in comparing crime Stats in Detroit, Washington, DC, Atlanta and quite a few more. They all have something in common.

Gnirren
9th Dec 2007, 07:09
I'm curious, are you also allowed to carry other weapons on the street? Say I want to go to the library carrying a 2 ft sword, is that legal? Stun guns and maze are legal right? Just wondering where the line is drawn between what is considered self protection and not.

Buster Hyman
9th Dec 2007, 07:50
Indeed Davaar. The circumstances do tend to skew any "results" don't they. Hence, for me, why blanket generalisations (I can put my hand up to a few of them) never work.

Everyone has a right to breed, but there are many that you'd say probably shouldn't. Perhaps everyone does have a right to bear arms, but, as this is a blanket right, the ones that shouldn't cannot be stopped.

BillHicksRules
9th Dec 2007, 10:40
BT,

"So, BHR, the legitimate purpose of my weapon is not to kill, but solely to defend against me or my wife being killed. Your logic is false."

Simply re-stating your false premise does not make it true.

Cheers

BHR

Utrinque Apparatus
9th Dec 2007, 11:27
Semantics Bill. Of course guns are designed to kill. Kitchen Knives aren't, but are indeed very effective in the role if the homicide stats are anything to go by - see, I told you it was pure semantics. :}

The sad fact is that properly licenced weapons have been confiscated from law abiding citizens in the UK following the knee jerk, emotional, but highly understandable, red herring effects of Dunblane and Hungerford whilst the hoods are allowed unfettered access to the hundreds of thousands of illegal weapons on our streets (they don't care about Tony's Gun Laws you see), and the results since then speak for themselves.

The right to possess properly licenced, secure and responsibly held weapons has been rescinded, whilst we as a society accept the horrendous gun culture on our streets as just one of those sink hole estate things and the attrition rate is deemed acceptable too ? :ugh:

As one who carried a weapon for many years in various theatres of operations, including the UK, I can assure all that guns do kill, maim and also deter and protect depending on which side of humanity you wish to sit.

Anyway, I liked Bill Hicks despite my conformity in so many other ways :E

TheDesertFerret
9th Dec 2007, 12:20
Brickhistory,

Thats a fair post with respect to my comment on the status quo.

I would observe though that you must take with a pinch of salt some of the observations made by my compatriots.

A large slug of my beloved brethren suffer from a bizarre disease of which the main symptom is to frequently observe that "everything is ****, the country is going to the dogs, doom doom doom doom, we're all going to die!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!"

I strongly recommend you come and visit the place for yourself and form your own opinion - apart from the yob culture teens you might be pleasantly surprised.

We will still beat you up of course! :} (You'll have to leave your rifle at Heathrow I'm afraid).

df

brickhistory
9th Dec 2007, 13:56
brickhistory: My experiences visiting have been marvelous and not a whiff of trouble.

Been there, done that. Excellent visits (ok, it was only southern England. Still have yet to see most of the place....will have to wait for the dollar to come back up....oh, wait, we're doomed........)

I may not bring my rifle, but I bet I could find a nice 9mm easily enough. Illegal, of course, but since gun laws only affect the legal, it's still very easy to get a gun there.............

TheDesertFerret
9th Dec 2007, 14:06
Brick,

Surely as a hard nosed military type you can speedily rustle up a lethal kinetic weapon out of a bar of soap and a paper knife?

I think MI5 and MI6 will have tabs on you when you arrive (do the north, West, Wales, Ireland and Scotland as well next time).

My travelling tip is to wander into the meanest pub in a place called "Barnsley", wander up to the bar and say loudly:

"Hi, I'm from the Yoo Ess Eyy. Give me a Skotch and whilst you're at it I think you English are all raging homosexuals".

I'll come to the funeral of course.

df :}

brickhistory
9th Dec 2007, 15:12
Surely as a hard nosed military type you can speedily rustle up a lethal kinetic weapon out of a bar of soap and a paper knife?


I'm Air Force. The only weapon I'm likely to use manually would be a golf club.


Give me a Skotch and whilst you're at it I think you English are all raging homosexuals".

Actually, I dislike Scotch so I'd order a bourbon and I would have thought the second half of your sentence was a given, so why waste valuable drinking time?




(I keed, I keed)

west lakes
9th Dec 2007, 15:29
Interesting really, here I am sat at home on the PC to the sound of gunfire coming from across the fields nearby.
Nice calm day here in the UK









P.S. It's a legal indoor/outdoor gunrange

Two's in
10th Dec 2007, 01:30
And if you can't make it to the Mall because you're at Church...


Sunday 9 December 2007

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071210/D8TE88C81.html

ARVADA, Colo. (AP) - A gunman killed two staff members at a missionary training center early Sunday after being told he couldn't spend the night, and about 12 hours later four people were shot at a busy megachurch in Colorado Springs.

Colorado Springs police Lt. Fletcher Howard said a suspect had been detained in the shootings at the New Life Church, but a church member who was locked down at the church Sunday afternoon said a security guard had shot and killed the gunman. Authorities in Arvada, a Denver suburb about 65 miles north, said no one had been captured in the shootings there.

It was not immediately known whether the shootings were related, but Arvada authorities said they were sharing information with Colorado Springs investigators.

The program that runs mission training in Arvada has a small office at the New Life Church's World Prayer Center.

A gunman in a black trench coat and a high-powered rifle entered the church's main foyer about 1 p.m. and began shooting, according to the church member, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the police department had asked that it release all information.

The church's 11 a.m. service had recently ended, and hundreds of people were milling about when the gunman opened fire. Nearby were parents picking up their children from the nursery.

The gunman was killed by a member of the church's armed security staff, the source said. Four people were shot, and the source did not know whether the shooter was one of the four. A SWAT team was searching the building for an explosive device, but the source could not confirm any details.

Howard, who had characterized the shootings as occurring outside the church, declined to say whether the suspect had been shot.

Three people were taken to Penrose Community Hospital in Colorado Springs, where they were listed in critical, fair and good condition, said hospital spokeswoman Amy Sufak.

The first shooting happened at about 12:30 a.m. at the Youth With a Mission center in Arvada, a Denver suburb, police spokeswoman Susan Medina said.

A man and a woman were killed and two men were wounded, Medina said. All four were staff members with the center, said Paul Filidis, a Colorado Springs-based spokesman with Youth With a Mission.

Arvada Police Chief Don Wick said the suspect spent several minutes speaking with people inside the dorm. Peter Warren, director of Youth With a Mission Denver, said the man asked whether he could spend the night. Several youths called on Tiffany Johnson, the center's director of hospitality.

"The director of hospitality was called. That's when he opened fire," Warren said. Johnson, 26, was killed.

Warren said he didn't know whether any of the students or staff knew the gunman. "We don't know why" he came to the dormitory, Warren said.

Track Coastal
10th Dec 2007, 05:40
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/church.shooting/index.html

before being killed by a security staff member

Armed security staff at a church??????:eek:

G-CPTN
10th Dec 2007, 07:44
"We don't know why" he came to the dormitory, Warren said.
Probably seeking sanctuary . . .

Blacksheep
10th Dec 2007, 08:44
The gunman was killed by a member of the church's armed security staff.... (:uhoh:) .....Howard .... declined to say whether the suspect had been shot.
The Arvada Kadavra spell? :suspect:

Life's a Beech
10th Dec 2007, 10:53
Other reports say that the gunman was shot. Unlike many recent shooting incidents, this one was not in a place where guns were banned.

AMF
10th Dec 2007, 13:19
This thread is still going? Well, with all the susbsequent posts and occasional blather from outsiders who just don't get why we aren't knee-jerk reactionaries on the gun thing like they are, it's time for a much-needed, 2nd Amendment primer to the original question (though I realize reactionaries don't feel the need to read so to that crowd it's probably a wasted effort).

Taildragger67
These guys were educated. They knew what they were doing. I suggest that it was to indicate that, when a "well regulated militia" was in fact no longer needed (as the nation matured and was therefore able to fight off those pesky imperialist British who were making nasty noises again when the Amendment was made), then the measure needed to assist a "well regulated militia" - ie. the right to bear arms - would itself be redundant.

They were very well-educated, and yes the Founders knew what they were doing (and writing). If you read the sentence carefully and in it's entirety, you'll notice there's no implication that keeping and bearing arms is something granted by the government. On the contrary"..., the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is clearly structured in the sentence as an a priori condition, whereas a "well-regulated milita" is a manifestation. Bearing in mind that the Bill of Rights were laid out specifically as an enumeration to define the limits of Federal government legislative power, at the time of it's writing the militia was considered to be every able-bodied, male private citizen between the ages of 17-45.

Also, references to "the people" or "people's" in every amendment (and associated writings) is referring to individual(s). Anti-gun advocates promoting their agenda would have you believe that for some reason in the singular case of the 2nd Amendment the Founderns suddenly, inexplicably used the word in a nebulous, purple-prose, collective way.

Lastly, a "free State" is erroneously assumed by some to mean a "well-defended country" simply because it can carry that connotation in modern nomenclature, or because militias were called-up and used during the Revolution and/or formed to fight Indians on the frontier. This produces fodder for the "we have an army now instead" crowd. On the contrary, a "free State" as written in the Bill of Rights means "a non-Tryannical State". It was already assumed by the Founders the country would defend itself from outside force...they had raised a regular army in time of need in addition to using militia during the Revolution they'd just recently fought. Overall, despite a few successes, the militia had usually performed so poorly against professional soldiers in pitched battle that the argument the Founders (many of who commanded units during the war) would especially rely on them for national defense of the country to repel outside forces can't be given serious thought.

On the contrary, insistence by post-Revolution Anti-federalists that a the Bill of Rights be included as condition to ratify the Constitution was for the fear their OWN government might devolve into becoming Tyrannical itself, with people occupying it's positions legislating themselves (democratically of course) arbitrary powers and wielding unjustified force against individuals and minority factions making up the citizenry. Thus the document primarily concerns Rights as held by Individuals, for all (and especially Legislators) to read, unlike the Constitution which provides for deliniation and divisions of power within the government, but only assumes limits of power from the point of view of the individual, with no enumeration. Read the Constitution and BOR yourself and it'll be clear to you what I mean.

Going deeper to explain the meaning behind "the people" and "militia" and the reason that "a well-regulated militia" doesn't translate to "army" (and therefore has never been considered the qualifier for the right to keep and bear arms) are the Founder's writings, letters, and philosophical leanings that made it abundantly clear that keeping arms is intrinsic to an individual's ability to keep, preserve, and defend one's own Life, the most basic of Lockean principles (Locke's 2nd Treatise of Government being perhaps the most fundamental, philosophical influence on the Founders that eventually broadened into those ideas put forth later in the form of Paine's Common Sense, The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers (especially Madison's contributions), Anti-Federalist writings, among many others). These pre- and post-Revolution writings, letters, and essays are available for anyone to study. Members of the Supreme Court thoroughly research them when compelled to find context and background to gain understanding of what was intended...so can you.

In them you'll find they believed Inherent Rights are something possessed by each individual...they are not granted by any government...and this is essential to the concept that Government exists "by the People", which (according to the philosophy) is the only source from which a non-tyrannical State can derive it's power. By extention, this particular individual Right (to keep and bear arms) is one of the fundamentals necessary to obtaining and maintaining one's Liberty in the broad and specific contexts of that word.

(continued......)

AMF
10th Dec 2007, 13:22
The line of thinking goes something like this (if you're interested):

In a state of Nature no government exists. Every individual is bestowed with an inherent Right to Life and using one's power is justified for it's preservation, not only in self-defense but also through efforts to obtain food and other basics to sustain oneself, such as property (property was the original idea behind "pursuit of happiness" ). This means each individual possesses the Right to use force, even lethal force, to maintain this condition. Also, the individual possesses the right to mete out punishment, even after the fact, to anyone infringing upon their Right to Life.

Individuals can live in a community and choose to form a government, and by their consent, transfer some of their inherent power found in a state of Nature to the State they've now agreed to be governed by. Thus, basic govenment includes a court/legal system and some type of policing force as agent and arbitrator for the People who've bestowed their power to punish those who've violated another's inherent Rights. But while individuals can elect to transfer Power and responsibility to arbitrate and punish, this does not remove or suspend fundamental Inherent Rights (including to Life) possessed by each citizen. The Rights are axiomatic, because they are the only source from which government power is ultimately derived. The Right to defend one's own Life against those who would infringe upon it remains, and is inviolate.

Observe the concept in law of justifiable homicide. Killing during someone's act of attempting to take away your Life bears no resultant punishment and is recognition by the State/People of this Inherent Right and power as it exists in a state of Nature, even while living in a governed community. Under those conditions (during the act of immediate self-preservation) the Law recognizes that Nature's power hasn't been transferred or relenquished to the State, but retained by the individual. A State using force or threat of force (prison) to prevent you from doing so is thought to be philosophically and morally corrupt because a government isn't granting you this power; it's found in Nature and like an Inherent Right exists a priori.

So if a State uses force/threat of force with no consent of the People or there's no recognition of these Rights possessed be each, then it's power is arbitrary and therefore, Tryannical. In that case, the State can be justifiably be removed by the citizenry, with force of arms if necessary. Conversely, the State can't ever remove individual Rights...it can only recognize/fail to recognize, or attempt to protect/supress them.

This...the belief in inherent, individual Rights, and that a State could justifiably derive it's power only from the people by their consent for the purpose of protecting those citizen's Rights through the primacy of Law...was the philosophical core that justified the Founder's "treason" and drove the American Revolution. Most Founders saw it as their duty, and the Declaration of Independence gives glimpses in it's references and wording to the underlying philosophy they held to be true. And indeed this core was revolutionary thinking, and the real Great Experiment was attempting to devise a working government structure that sought to unite a nation while recognizing and protecting these inherent Rights possessed by those it governed; the first attempt to put republicanism and that philosophy into real, working form.

It should be noted that tyrannical governments then (as now)..of which the Founders were well-aware.. treated private ownership of weapons not as a Right, but something the State granted or remove at whim with the times (much like they "granted" the citizenry having a say in governance, which religion they could practice without persecution, or voicing opposition). This was the usual condition, and seizing weaponry went back at least as far as peasants not being allowed to keep swords or crossbows (often distrubuted just prior to battle and re-collected from the living fodder afterwards). Keeping of weapons by individuals was considered a threat by tyrants and they recognized no inherent Right(s) because individuals were considered to exist for the sake of the Crown/State/Motherland/Fatherland etc, not the other way around.

So if you believe in the philosophy, the individual citizen keeping arms goes hand-in-hand with Right to Life self-preservation, not only for defense of Life against something in Nature or another individual, but also to defending one's own Life against the State. To maintain an individual's freedom. The "militia" was (and is) considered to be every private citizen. A "free State" means exactly that..."non-Tyrannical". The Founders...recently guilty of High Treason to the Crown by making outright war against tyranny themselves...certainly didn't exclude one's own and (from their associated writings) it was clear they were burdened by the idea and were working to prevent the governement they were structuring devolving into a Tryannical state at some future time. The notion that the Founders would allow or agree with a State's ability to strip it's individual citizens of the tools to prevent or rid itself of tyrannical government is ridiculous.

Indeed it could be suggested that if someone now sought to set up a "well regulated militia", complete with the arms they are curently apparently allowed to bear, within the United States, they would be quickly set to rights by police/NG/armed forces. Hence the clear redundancy of the provision in the modern age.

You could suggest it, but you'd quite wrong. And I'm not referring to the so-called "private militias" (which are also legal to form) or the National Guard. "Well-regulated" but "unorganized militias" have always existed, recognized, and been protected both by individual States and the Federal government. In States they legally/constitutionally pre-existed National Guard units (which are regarded as "organized militias") and are still maintained in some States with their blessing because they are enumerated in the State Constitution, a few which predate the US Constitution itself. Furthermore, even the Federal government recognizes the "unorganized militia" today via the Citizen Marksmanship Program (for private citizens with no attachement to the regular or reserve military), which was created by Congress to promote skill and proficiency with firearms in the general public. They now also actively focus on firearms safety education to youth,and organize shooting matches where people show up with their own weapons,

Through the CMP a member can even purchase surplus military rifles like M1 Garands (even re-imported from abroad for this purpose), which of course was the main battle rifle used by American soldiers during WW2 and the Korean War. And although I found an M-16 easy to fire, qualify with, and (most importantly) carry and even now keep an accurized AR-15 around for mouse and poodle control, a Garand in the hands of a proficient user is a far more formidable weapon.

Btw, you'll find the membership in these officialy-recognized, unorganized militias includes many military veterans and cops.

AirScrew
10th Dec 2007, 14:13
AMF.

Your reply is an interesting, educational and thought provoking read. And particularly for me, being a Brit.

But this is history, and we live in the present. And the UK isnt about to attack back after all this time.

Countries develop over time, so do people and communities. What was right one day may not be 'right' for all time. Laws change, and so might constitutions get amended.

The car and cancer analogies are interesting. They are huge and horrific figures ofcourse, but for both topics there are huge organisations and lots of money aimed at reducing them. Go back in time somewhat, and we would find that the effort and focus in these areas was much less. Things change with time.

But now to my main point. And a personal one. Many of you will not like this.

We live is Europe. We do have gun laws. We look around the world and we want peace.
We look at the US stance on these items and our perception is that the collective view from the US is somewhat different.
A car accident is an accident.
Death from cancer is a blow from mother nature, science, or god, depending on your philosophy.
Death from a gun in the context of this thread is not an accident. It is the deliberate taking of human life. And it is unlawful. Even in the USA.
And it is not self defence, which appears to be the main thrust of your argument and the 2nd amendment.

So we in the rest of the world are worried about the USA. We have a right to appear worried about the USA, and you have to see and respect that, even if you dont agree.

But more, there are certain characteristics that we all associate with developed and developing countries. In the great scheme of things, the USA is a young country, and has been slow to adopt certain issues including gun control.

It will be a brave politician who stands on the 'Hill' promoting gun control. He will not get elected president.
But I genuinely look forward to the day when a mass Tort is filed against one or more of the US gun manufacturers.
Then we can recoice at the number of lawyers in DC, and see them doing something really useful.

And I think its coming.

AMF
10th Dec 2007, 16:22
QUOTE]AirScrew AMF.
Your reply is an interesting, educational and thought provoking read. And particularly for me, being a Brit.
But this is history, and we live in the present. And the UK isnt about to attack back after all this time.[/QUOTE]

The 2nd Amendment wasn't included by virtue of the possibility the UK might re-attack. I thought my post made that abundantly clear. It was included to enumerate that individuals hold the inherent right to defend their own lives and against a non-free, tyrannical State as underpinned by Natural Law.

You assume our notion that the keeping of weapons as individuals (and that's it's an inherent right) is based on a quasi-Swiss model..ie national defense. This is incorrect, but not suprising, given that most Europeans believe that if it's not Euro, it must be flawed or at least "not progressive".

Countries develop over time, so do people and communities. What was right one day may not be 'right' for all time. Laws change, and so might constitutions get amended.

You erroneously presume 2 things. First, that the Founders didn't consider this, or write into Law vehicles to change what they had structured. They did, but made it systematic and deliberate enough to resist change on a whim.

You seem unaware that their greatest fear was devolvement of what they'd attempted into tyranny, where individuals within minority factions were democratically stripped of their Inherent Rights. Your second presumption is think that governments, especially democratic ones, will always advance freedom.

Laws indeed change, and constitutions do get amended. But the philosophy that underpins the original intent the Dec of Ind, Constitution, and especially BORs are supposed to address doesn't. You either believe that philosophy (that the State exists for the sake of the Individual, by their consent, deriving it's power only from them) or you don't.

You obviously don't believe, just as your forbears didn't. That's why my great-great-etc--etc grandaddy shot at yours.

But now to my main point. And a personal one. Many of you will not like this.
We live is Europe. We do have gun laws. We look around the world and we want peace.

Europe's record on peace, conflict, and colonialism (through force of arms) isn't exactly unblemished (to the tune of tens of millions), and Americans with even the scantest knowledge of Euro history have a hard time believing you want peace. We think you want to be taxed on promises of cradle-to-grave nurturing by the State in between the times the State isn't sending you to slaughter or dragging us into another World War.

We view Euros as very hypocritical when it comes pointing the finger at us on this issue.

We look at the US stance on these items and our perception is that the collective view from the US is somewhat different.
A car accident is an accident.
Death from cancer is a blow from mother nature, science, or god, depending on your philosophy.
Death from a gun in the context of this thread is not an accident. It is the deliberate taking of human life. And it is unlawful. Even in the USA.

Unless you're an extremist Quaker, etc. who dismisses such ideas, justifiable homicide is the lawful taking of human life, ie. a reflection of Natural Law.

And it is not self defence, which appears to be the main thrust of your argument and the 2nd amendment.

Obviously, we take self-defense and the defense of individual, inherent Rights more seriously than you do.

So we in the rest of the world are worried about the USA. We have a right to appear worried about the USA, and you have to see and respect that, even if you dont agree.

We'll see your opinions/worry...and perhaps even respect them if they're intelligent and given in the right tone from the right place....right up to the point you begin advising or try and force us to infringe upon or disregard our own Inherent, individual Rights.

But more, there are certain characteristics that we all associate with developed and developing countries. In the great scheme of things, the USA is a young country, and has been slow to adopt certain issues including gun control.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the oldest operating, living documents of a country run by the rule of Law in the world. They are our legal foundation. As far as we're concerned, it's y'all that are still "developing".

Accordingly, the US Constitution is the most-copied document in terms of countries that have emerged and ruled by Law or purport to be. The other side though, is that the Bill of Rights hasn't been... even though it's considered to be part of the Constitution and original founding document itself. The question is; why didn't/don't those coming to/ or in power believe the BORs, with it's concept of Inherent, individual rights possessed by each citizen enumerated, was one they wanted to include? See the idea that power corrupts and the number of tinpot "democratic republics" that have fallen into tyranny for the answer.

Once you realize that government is by consent of the governed (existing to protect your Individual rights), and commit outmoded, tyrannical concepts like Monarchy to the dustbin, you'll understand.

It will be a brave politician who stands on the 'Hill' promoting gun control.

Plenty of legislators (Senators and Congressmen) do that already, and we have many thousands of gun control laws. I don't know why that would be considered "brave", however. They represent and only answer to the people who elected them to Capitol Hill, and the majority obviously agreed with their stance during elections.

Standing up and advocating the Federal government seize and ban ownership of weapons from the law-abiding citizenry, however, is merely political showboating. The sound-bites would probably play well in Europe and NZ however.

He will not get elected president.

99.9% of voters don't decide who'll they'd elect based on their gun control stance. But it wouldn't matter if a a gun abolitionist were elected. Presidents don't introduce or pass legislative bills. And even if a law were passed forbidding the private ownership and keeping of guns, and a President signed it into Law, the final say rests with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, knowing the context and philosophy underpinning the 2nd Amendment, would rightly rule the law unconstitutonal.

It would play out no differently if laws were passed banning certain religions, political parties, or the ability for people to freely assemble. Our system was intended and structured to provide protection of Inherent Rights of individuals belonging to a minority faction, against majority whims translated into force and threat of it's use by Government.

Before that law could pass Supreme Court examination, you would first have to amend the Constitution to recind the 2nd Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights. Good luck. The only Amendment ever recinded was the Prohibition of alcohol, which in turn was the only one ever adopted that actually decreased a private citizen's freedom. The other amendments have either enumerated, extended, or increased it.

But I genuinely look forward to the day when a mass Tort is filed against one or more of the US gun manufacturers.

I believe that's already been tried. To no avail. You may as well file a tort against auto manufacturers based on drunk-drivers killing others during their misuse or course of a crime.

Then we can recoice at the number of lawyers in DC, and see them doing something really useful.

They could pick up litter along the highway next to the convicts. That would be really useful and they'd probably see some old friends.

And I think its coming.
Don't hold your breath.

BenThere
10th Dec 2007, 16:43
Pprune at its best. Reasoned debate.

AMF, thank you for the constitutional tutorial. Tears in my eyes.

oicur12
10th Dec 2007, 16:45
AMF,

Great post.

Only one problem.

The 6 most violent cities in the developed world are in the US.

Is that bad.

If so, how can this be solved.

Over to you.

brickhistory
10th Dec 2007, 17:14
AMF, well done, sir.

They still won't like it, but you presented a very cogent, rational presentation of the reasoning behind the Bill of Rights in general and the 2d Amendment in particular.

AirScrew
10th Dec 2007, 17:27
Presidents don't introduce or pass legislative bills. And even if a law were passed forbidding the private ownership and keeping of guns, and a President signed it into Law, the final say rests with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, knowing the context and philosophy underpinning the 2nd Amendment, would rightly rule the law unconstitutonal.

So is the USA capable of ever changing its constitution??
How would it do it??

Accordingly, the US Constitution is the most-copied document in terms of countries that have emerged and ruled by Law or purport to be. The other side though, is that the Bill of Rights hasn't been... even though it's considered to be part of the Constitution and original founding document itself. The question is; why didn't/don't those coming to/ or in power believe the BORs, with it's concept of Inherent, individual rights possessed by each citizen enumerated, was one they wanted to include? See the idea that power corrupts and the number of tinpot "democratic republics" that have fallen into tyranny for the answer.

And to bring us back on topic....
I am convinced by you that the Constitution and BOR are excellent documents, and well emulated. But please tell me which of those countries both used the US material, AND also have no gun control.??

I dont know that answer, but I'm sure you will enlighten us...

West Coast
10th Dec 2007, 17:30
"The 6 most violent cities in the developed world are in the US"

Lies, damned lies and statistics

A quick Internet search found a web site (mercer institute) that shows London (stan) a far less desirable city to live in than many US towns. One of the metrics used in ranking was public safety. Another was cost of living, no surprise on that one I'm sure. The former should say a few things as well.
A few of the safest towns were in Canada. A country that has guns woven within its culture. The US has problems for sure, but banning weapons isn't the answer. There are enough large safe cities in countries that allow weapons ownership to prove this

AirScrew
10th Dec 2007, 17:52
less desirable

is nothing to do with violent.

And less desirable doesnt have alot to do with Gun Control or the right to bear arms.

Track Coastal
10th Dec 2007, 18:19
A country that has guns woven within its culture
Canada? What a load of bollocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

AirScrew
10th Dec 2007, 18:19
I have just had a coffe with a few American colleagues here in London, who pointed me at this:

Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
The ACLU believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

For the non-US people, the ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."


I dont get it.
A nation of some 250m people believe they have the right to bear arms, and yet the Supreme Court doesnt believe that this 'right' is constitutionally protected.

Somebody explain this please!!!.

Otherwise my only comment will include the words arse and elbow....

AirScrew
10th Dec 2007, 18:24
WC. You need to get hold of some facts before contributing with statements like that.

Canada does not have the right to bear arms.

Canada DOES have gun control.

It might have HAD a pro-gun culture, but not today...

brickhistory
10th Dec 2007, 18:30
AirScrew, I offer this in all seriousness:


The ACLU's views typically (in my opinion) run to the far left of the political spectrum. It is interesting and one I've not really considered before why, as the ACLU does fight vigorously for their beliefs in many other Constitutional issues - freedom of speech despite the outrageousness of the words/speaker, etc - that they don't fight for the freedom guarenteed by the 2d Amendment.


But quite frankly, the ACLU and most of those who believe in gun ownership are generally far apart philosophically.

Many Europeans would like the ACLU; many Americans don't.

brickhistory
10th Dec 2007, 18:39
We have a right to appear worried about the USA,

Forgot to ask earlier: Why? Why on earth would an internal, domestic issue be a 'worry' for you?

AirScrew
10th Dec 2007, 18:42
BH.

Sounds like you are level-headed and I respect that.
I also guess your assessment of the UCLU on the political spectrum is valid.

But it is the statement about the judgement from the Supreme Court that worries me on this thread. If its true, then there is no 'right to bear arms'.
Right??

Flash2001
10th Dec 2007, 18:54
Hang on a minute here!
In rural Canada, many years ago, pretty well everyone had a rifle. One tended to get a single shot Cooey 22 on about the 10th birthday and it was an important rite of passage when your father first let you carry it behind him. Later on, the tubular magazine repeater was the next step. Kids who were going hunting after school would bring a rifle and just leave it in the cloak room until the end of class. No one thought it anything strange.
The school I attended required students to join the cadet corps and taught them to shoot starting at age 10 or 11.

After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again!

brickhistory
10th Dec 2007, 18:56
But it is the statement about the judgement from the Supreme Court that worries me on this thread. If its true, then there is no 'right to bear arms'.
Right??

Nope, I firmly believe there is that right. As AMF so eloquently wrote, that right, along with the other nine in the Bill of Rights, cannot be abridged by the government, i.e., the Supreme Court. It is inherent by the people and not 'granted' by the govenment.

To put it another way, I will never voluntarily turn in my firearms even if the Supreme Court were to rule the 2d Amendment moot due to it being today and not the 1700s. That is a 'law' I will voluntarily break and risk the consequences. I believe millions of others would do so as well and thus, it stands as an implicit counter to what could be perceived as 'tyranny.'

I have no doubt someone will dredge up the Heston line of "From my cold dead hands.........," but as a practical matter, law abiding gun owners really are not the problem.

BillHicksRules
10th Dec 2007, 19:25
AMF,
I well constructed set of posts there.
I disagree with the interpretations you make on the matters in question but I can still admire the manner in which they are presented.:D:D
Cheers
BHR

FakePilot
10th Dec 2007, 19:26
I suppose since the media's is right about how bad guns are then they must be right about how bad aviation is. Huh. Never realized that.

(I'm just trying to make the point that all the crap we hear and see from "experts" and obvious answers we're given for everything, see?)

Sunray Minor
10th Dec 2007, 19:30
Brickhistory,

Studying US politics and foreign policy some years ago, the module on guns and gun control carried a particularly interesting point that the 2nd amendment right has largely been dropped from the debate on prohibition of firearms these days.

I can't remember the details of the cases that lead up to this, but it was certainly not simply the ACLU making such a claim. It was at the supreme court where the 2nd amendment right was no longer used as a justification for unregulated access, the assumption being that the "2nd" did NOT preserve the right to assault rifles, prevention of cooling-off periods or other regulations that restrict the purchase of these weapons.

As for discussing the issue; given that the Europe and much of the "free world" seem to do a much better job at protecting their citizens from gun homicides, perhaps the US would do well to listen. The US can most certainly keep its lethal injections, free access to firearms, three-strike rules and hardline drug policies, but surely it should be welcomed that when the wheels come off these policies, the rest of the world shows an interest in offering alternatives. The US of all countries is not averse to doing the same itself...even when its "help" is the last thing a nation needs.

brickhistory
10th Dec 2007, 19:41
It was at the supreme court where the 2nd amendment right was no longer used as a justification for unregulated access, the assumption being that the "2nd" did NOT preserve the right to assault rifles, prevention of cooling-off periods or other regulations that restrict the purchase of these weapons

Close but no cigar. One can still, legally, own an 'assualt rifle (WTF is the definition of that? If you mean full auto, then say so.). There are very severe regulations on purchasing one, but it is still quite legal to own. (One's father collected after the kids were gone. He left me a MAC-10 - alas for being born last; eldest brother got a magnificent Thompson, next oldest got a magnificent M-14 - which I subsequently sold. Legally.

As to your other unrelated disagreements with US issues - capital punishment, sentencing guidelines, etc - noted.

May I suggest that many of the UK's issues - rampant crime, drug use, a rising murder rate (with and without guns) etc. might best be handled with a return to stiffer prison sentences, the death penalty for some crimes, etc. I'm thinking the 'good stern talking to' method is not working really well.

No? Why not? Would it be not my place or just because I disagree with your views?

con-pilot
10th Dec 2007, 19:54
The Supreme Court ruling that you talking about Sunray I believe, I could be incorrect, it that the State has the right to regulate the ownership of weapons, not the Federal Government.

This ruling is being challenged in the Supreme Court in March of next year. Basically the argument is that because of the Second Amendment the State cannot restrict the ownership of a weapon by a law biding citizen because it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. This ruling has been challenged before, however, until now the Court has refused to hear the case.

If you desire you can go back in this thread and see that I have already posted this exact subject.

So in March we will find out what the Justices have to say on this matter.

West Coast
10th Dec 2007, 20:02
Track Coastal

C'mon now. Wikipedia??? The user defined dictionary. Wikipedia is to proper definition what Myth Busters is to science, entertainment and opinion only.

I've hunted in Canada on occasion. My Uncles who live there continue to do so. I didn't say weapons ownership is as pervasive as in the US, but there are a lot of weapons there.

The USA has gun control laws. I could be snide and say gun control is hitting what you aim at...but I won't. There are many, many laws on the books governing weapons within the US. If your definition is simply no weapons then yes we lack a single comprehensive ban on private weapons ownership. Many of your ilk over here would love to enact more laws on top of the existing ones. Bill signings make great video clips. The problem is enforcing any new or existing law. If the state or federal government told me I had to surrender my weapons, I as a law abiding citizen would do so begrudgingly. Now I'd love to see the same degree of cooperation from someone who's night job is as a carjacker. Before you get your hackles up many thousands of miles away from the action, I admit we do have a problem. Simply banning weapons isn't the answer however.

Gun control laws are like placebo pills. They make you feel good for a short while but they don't do anything for you.


AirScrew
"Canada does not have the right to bear arms"

And in the US many also don't have the right to bear arms. What constitutional, birthright or any other type of rights do you think a mugger cares about?
Guess I can't go out tonight and pillage and plunder, the courts say I don't have a right to carry my weapon, better stop by the police station and turn it in.

More laws are not the answer.

"It might have HAD a pro-gun culture, but not today..."

Have you taken measure of that in Canada's equivalent of flyover states?

Sunray Minor
10th Dec 2007, 20:06
That is exactly my point Brick: the 2nd amendment is no longer used for these arguments. Your right to own a MAC-10 is entirely independent of this "right" and your continuing ability to do so is neither enshrined or prevented by the 2nd amendment. In essence, arguing the constitution, by virtue of the 2nd amendment, safeguards this right is unsustainable.

You are more than welcome to argue that the UK's issues may be resolved by stiffer penalties, or any other solution - any views are more than welcome. But given we are now approaching the US' world-leading level of per capita prison population, and given that the issues you highlight are excessively high in both our apparently wealthy countries, I'd argue that the cause and solution lies elsewhere.

brickhistory
10th Dec 2007, 21:07
SM, I really don't care what the UK does/passes as law. I'm not a citizen so it's not my concern.

If I choose to visit or live there, then I abide by those laws. Simple.

As it is here. The difference is you have a choice. You can own a gun or not. It is up to the individual.

An important point that.

BlooMoo
10th Dec 2007, 21:40
Before you get your hackles up many thousands of miles away from the action, I admit we do have a problem. Simply banning weapons isn't the answer however.

Gun control laws are like placebo pills. They make you feel good for a short while but they don't do anything for you.

I completely agree, a very practical view from where I stand on this.

My personal collection of American friends are, I would estimate, about 70-80% pro gun-ownership in their own country, that's a current estimate.

Equally, whenever I'm in discussion now and then about this with the odd American friend (usually down the pub and at those times the latest 'incident' is still quite recent) the hypothetical scenario of 'create the US with a clean sheet' - ie no legacy of a few centuries of gun ownership as a constitutional right and therefore hypothetically start on the basis of contemporary merit/experience, and then, I estimate my same bunch of American friends are about 70-80% in favour of a total ban on gun ownership.

All completely pie in the sky. Practicalities dictate that the prevalence of gun ownership in the US currently (not least the culturally evolved constitutional connection), is the starting point for real debate. It is so very easy for a few luvvies to try and put the world to rights (usually involving banning something) on the back of a fag packet (no pun intended) without any sensible consideration of reality and consideration of the cultural experience, expectations and awareness of literally hundreds of millions of individuals.

I personally feel one hell of a lot safer in a shopping mall or near a church or school anywhere in the US than I do down your average UK town centre once it gets near teeny-bopper-going-home-to-single-parent-welfare-digs.

Thanks to those centuries of living with the ubiquity of gun ownership then my view is that most Americans are, and so therefore, is American society, far more mature as a people on the entire issue. Can you imagine the carnage on the streets of the UK if American gun-laws were suddenly replicated here? It would be like giving razor blades to nursery kids to play with.

No, America can live with with a 'gun-owning' society - they have the experience and a couple of centuries of Darwin effects too to manage the situation. No American I know doesn't bang their head hard when a complete nutter manages to murder innocents but I have to agree with West Coast that the naive 'just ban guns' type idle pontification from afar is neither realistic nor well thought through.

Consider a loose analogy from the UK side - if you exclude the centuries of history and constitutional entanglement of having an exclusive hereditary (and dysfunctional) family as the head of state of the UK, with theoretical right of veto over our own democratically elected Government then we're in no-brainer territory. Who would create a country off of a clean sheet with that amount of illogical baggage?

BM

AirScrew
10th Dec 2007, 21:53
Quote:
But it is the statement about the judgement from the Supreme Court that worries me on this thread. If its true, then there is no 'right to bear arms'.
Right??
Nope, I firmly believe there is that right. As AMF so eloquently wrote, that right, along with the other nine in the Bill of Rights, cannot be abridged by the government, i.e., the Supreme Court. It is inherent by the people and not 'granted' by the govenment.

So BH, you appear to be challenging the Supreme Court ruling. You asked me earlier what I am 'worried' about.
If I'm reading this thread correctly, I'm worried that a country (ie its people) might believe and maintain to carry arms in direct contradiction with its most senior court of law.
Man, that is close to anarchy.

brickhistory
10th Dec 2007, 22:20
If I'm reading this thread correctly, I'm worried that a country (ie its people) might believe and maintain to carry arms in direct contradiction with its most senior court of law.
Man, that is close to anarchy.

Again using AMF's beautifully thought out posts as the best, quick reference, the Bill of Rights are ones inherently held by the PEOPLE.

They are not given or withheld by the State. Should the State try to infringe upon any of those rights, in this case, ban, then it has abrogated its contract with the People and thus is 'tyrannical.' I then have the right to defend myself from that tyranny.

I truly believe this is just intellectual 'what if's.' I do not believe the learned men and women of the Court will decide anything of the sort.

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

Bloo Moo, nicely put!

con-pilot
10th Dec 2007, 22:32
So BHR, you appear to be challenging the Supreme Court ruling. You asked me earlier what I am 'worried' about.
If I'm reading this thread correctly, I'm worried that a country (ie its people) might believe and maintain to carry arms in direct contradiction with its most senior court of law.
Man, that is close to anarchy.

I fail to follow your logic here. Just what makes you believe that we own weapons "in direct contradiction with its most senior court of law"?

That is just flatly not true, or we would not be allowed to own weapons. If as you state that the Supreme Court had in fact ruled against private ownership it would be illegal to own weapons. It is not illegal to own weapons except in some cities in the United States and the District of Colombia. Well not actually illegal for a private citizen to own a weapon, but damn difficult in these places.

So, since when is obeying the law of the land and exercising the rights guaranteed by the Constitution anarchy?

If I misunderstood your post I most humbly apologize.

Sunray Minor
10th Dec 2007, 23:38
Brickhistory

As it is here. The difference is you have a choice. You can own a gun or not. It is up to the individual.

That is interesting.

If we have agreed the 2nd amendment right isn't what enshrines the ability to arm yourself, instead being "freedom" of the individual, why does the US have such draconian laws in relation to cannabis for example? Surely they are no different?

The issue with firearms surely can't be one of personal freedom can it? I'm sure we all agree that ideally personal freedom comes first, but when that freedom starts to cost thousands of lives for no provable gain, why persist with it? It would be like having freedom to drive drunk.

brickhistory
10th Dec 2007, 23:49
If we have agreed the 2nd amendment right isn't what enshrines the ability to arm yourself,

We have not agreed. The 2d Amendment is what keeps the state from deciding for me whether I choose to own a gun or not. It is MY choice not one dictated to me.

The issue with firearms surely can't be one of personal freedom can it? I'm sure we all agree that ideally personal freedom comes first, but when that freedom starts to cost thousands of lives for no provable gain, why persist with it?

It absolutely can be about freedom. That freedom was bought with thousands of lives during the 1770s-1780s. (Flag waving, but true...).

It is still worth lives today. The government does not rule except with the consent of the people. Thus far, the people have chosen not to amend the Constitution, therefore, the government cannot 'take' the rights/freedom of the people.

Please don't think I, or probably anyone here posting in favor of the right to bear arms, is anything but appalled by the tragedies of some loon killing innocents. That person deserves to die, immediately if possible, but by the state eventually. But we disagree on that as well, don't we?

But those criminal actions do not negate the inherent rights of the people as agreed to under the Constitution.

edited to add: I will not change your opinion and you will not change mine. Mine, however, is the one that carries a vote. As well as a .45 on occassion.

I'm done with this wheel.....

ABX
11th Dec 2007, 01:42
I love it :rolleyes: how 'feelings and emotion' usually run this debate and logic is almost exclusively excluded. (there have been one or two notable displays of clear thinking and logic so far in this debate.)

I have spent some time in Colorado, a state that has very liberal gun laws (in comparison to the Oz gun laws), including the right, upon application and screening (only law abiding are approved), to carry concealed weapons.

Colorado Springs is a not over run by gun crimes (despite last weekends events) and usually enjoys comparatively low gun crime. Think of it from the perspective of a crook, if you had the urge to go and hold up the local liquor store you might think twice if you knew that the store clerks and the customers are all potentially carrying a 45 inside their jacket!

Australia was host to a particularly nasty string of shootings at Port Arthur in Tasmania (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/bryant/), Martin Bryant started his afternoon of killing inside the Broad Arrow Café, that at the time, had around 60 people in it. Do you think Bryant could have continued his killing spree if half or more of the 60 people in the café had been carrying concealed guns? Surly two or three of the 60 people in the café would have stopped Bryant before he killed 35 people and wounded 18 more.

Conclusion: the right to carry concealed firearms in Tasmania on that day would have saved 32 lives and 18 injuries.

Standing by for flaming and to have that undeniable common sense ignored.

Cheers,

The Professor
11th Dec 2007, 02:44
The US is a violent country.
Violence has been a key to many of America’s successes.
It is one of the few countries that kill its own citizens.
It has the highest homicide rate of any developed country (far higher than Canada).
It has the highest rate of violent crime and rape.
Its Government readily turns to violence when its foreign policy objectives are in jeopardy. The US has been involved in the manufacture of more conflict than any other country post WWII.

Canadians and Swiss do not have the same propensity towards violence in general and although these countries have high gun ownership, they do not have same resulting problems as the US.

Comparisons to such countries in this debate are not valid.

boofhead
11th Dec 2007, 02:56
If we are talking about guns being used in the US to murder people, the first point hardly ever brought up is that guns are used in self defence many more times than to murder. Some estimates put it at a million times a year or more. The true figure must be lower than that, but such defences are rarely reported, so we have no way of knowing for sure. Also the mere suggestion that a victim is armed puts off most criminals, not only for the gun carrier, but for all around him too. Look at the rate of home invasions in Aus when the populace was disarmed. It went up like a roman candle. So there is a positive result of carrying or having a weapon that far outweighs any bad result.
Second point is that the white male in the US has a lower rate of violent crime than in almost any other country in the world, including Canada, UK, Aus etc. White women have a negligible rate, too small to measure. The vast majority of gun murders are black on black crimes, and most are driven by the drug business. So to stop the gun violence, legalise and regulate drugs. Simple really.

kiwi chick
11th Dec 2007, 03:31
It is one of the few countries that kill its own citizens.

Hmmmmm. Lets rethink that one shall we?

Have you heard of Maoris? Or Aborigines? Or Jewish people? Or South Africans?

(fair fecken RUNS out of the room.....)

Track Coastal
11th Dec 2007, 03:45
I've hunted in Canada on occasion. My Uncles who live there continue to do so. I didn't say weapons ownership is as pervasive as in the US, but there are a lot of weapons there.


I've lived there, mostly hunting rifles (Moose, Elk, Caribou etc) and some shot gun again for hunting fowl (Geese, Duck etc). Only ever met one guy in 5 years that owned a pistol (target) and never ever met anyone with a military type weapon.

The wiki link was a summary/synopsis of their gun laws, and who the pro/against lobby groups are, no opinion on the rights and wrongs.

sqwkvfr
11th Dec 2007, 05:15
The guns laws of the USA are not dictacted by international opinion.

Is that serious enough for ya?

I can see why some on this thread have responded the way that they did....Americans despise outsiders trying to tell us how to live our lives....that will never change.

Now, for all the myopic "guns must go" types, consider this:

-the vast majority of gun crimes are committed in areas or jurisdictions where guns are the most heavily regulated or outright banned.

Virginia Tech is a "gun free zone;" so is the mall in Omaha; so is New York City.

One place that is not is a certain church in Colorado Springs were a legally armed citizen stopped a killing spree saving dozens of lives just this last week.

I guess those of you who don't like my country's gun laws are just gonna have to deal with. It should be pretty easy since they're really none of your concern.

Oh, and one more thing......I train flight students from the UK; as a general rule, one of their VERY FIRST recreational activities upon arival in this country is a trip to the Scottsdale Gun Club to sqeeze off a few rounds.

I guess there just something fun about exercising that sort of freedom.

I'm lovin' it!

West Coast
11th Dec 2007, 05:33
"Its Government readily turns to violence when its foreign policy objectives are in jeopardy"

By God, I knew some agenda driven individual would somehow tie the otherwise un-associated subjects together. Would only be better if you had blamed Dubya for the mall shooting. Two world wars and a recent bout of ethnic cleansing yet we are lectured about violence in our country.


Track coastal
The mall shooting wasn't with a handgun. I don't think your argument is strengthened by delineating between types of weapons when defining a gun culture or not.
That yahoo would have found someway to carry out his perverse plan.
I also have fond memories in my youth of hunting in Canada. A little town named Marathon, right on Lake Superior. Spectacular hunting, but all the locals told me never eat any of the fish we caught.

priapism
11th Dec 2007, 05:52
It's any Americans god given right to own a weapon. And if they want to use it to go and shoot dead a couple of hundred innocent victims that is their god given right too!!

It's their country , let them make and change the laws as they see fit.

Glad I'm here in Aus where a former prime minister outlawed automatic weapons.

I am a Paramedic and the amount of people wandering the streets with psychotic disorders and paranoid delusions is just plain scary.

I'm glad it isn't their god given right to own a gun here. I would be kept pretty busy with the consequences.

If good old USA doesn't want gun control then that is the democratic decision made by the people -they just have to live with the consequences of that decision .

Lately they seem to be doing so with an almost monotonous regularity.

Buster Hyman
11th Dec 2007, 06:24
Conclusion: the right to carry concealed firearms in Tasmania on that day would have saved 32 lives and 18 injuries.
Quite possibly, but, can you factor in how many more would have died in unrelated incidents before & after Port Arthur?

Well, I guess we're lucky that the USA is far, far removed from a third world country like Somalia, et al. Could you imagine a breakdown in society & then all those guns would come out...:uhoh:...ummm...


(Don't mention Katrina, or we'll be here all night!)

ABX
11th Dec 2007, 06:31
It's any Americans god given right to own a weapon. And if they want to use it to go and shoot dead a couple of hundred innocent victims that is their god given right too!


Yeah right, more emotional bulldust, if you applied the logic I presented in my post above, you would not have arrived at that conclusion.:ugh:

Glad I'm here in Aus where a former prime minister outlawed automatic weapons.

Little Johnnie's response was a knee jerk reaction, if we could all carry a .45 under our coat violent crime would drop.:ok:

Have a look at the numbers, not the emotional arguments, what are the gun crime stats per person in the States. Pretty low I'd wager.


One place that is not is a certain church in Colorado Springs were a legally armed citizen stopped a killing spree saving dozens of lives just this last week.


sqwkvfr, that is so true,I have spent a lot of time in Colorado Springs and a large number of the locals would agree with you.

To All:
Doesn't it surprise you that the people who have liberal gun laws - such as Colorado - defend those laws loudly, while the folks who have no guns cry out for prohibition out of fear? I wonder how many anti-gun campaigners have ever actually fired or even handled a gun?:yuk:

Flying Binghi
11th Dec 2007, 06:37
I've just heard on the news (here in Australia) of yet another knife stabing murder, the third today from what I hear.

In America there has been a far higher, one off use, kill ratio achieved with aircraft as compared to guns.

I think more thought and discusion should be put towards understanding the cause of such misery, rather then the tools used to inflict it.

airgrunt
11th Dec 2007, 08:12
Bloody hell, what are you lot worried about. It's Yanks killing Yanks :} Do the rest of us really give a rat's arse :rolleyes:

chuks
11th Dec 2007, 08:44
Anyone else remember that unfortunate Japanese student who got blown away by some tooled-up resident of New Orleans, I think it was? He knocked on a stranger's door seeking directions and was just shot out of hand.

The only reason the case made the national news was because of the fuss made by the next-of-kin and the Japanese government when the shooter was allowed to walk. Hey, some odd-looking dude shows up on your doorstep, you shoot him, right? Best not to take chances but to shoot first and ask questions later.

Actually, the very first White men to visit North America came unstuck in the very same way. Yes, the Vikings scragged the first Indians they met. Around the next bend they encountered lots more of them, not best pleased that their mates had been dispatched to the Happy Hunting Ground. The rest was history, literally.

Track Coastal
11th Dec 2007, 09:56
I wonder how many anti-gun dweebs have ever actually fired or even handled a gun?
Lots of different types from the British, Australian and American armed forces. Whilst I found the FN Minimi to be a hell of a lot lighter than the M60, firing 5.56 or 7.62 never gave me a woody. I'm quite happy to be labelled an anti-gun dweeb (and I'm a pretty darned good shot with rifle or pistol). Don't own one (or need one) and never want to.

You want to be a gun toting redneck? Well **** over there and fill yer boots...
http://canberra.usembassy.gov/consular/visas/iv/index.html

Sunray Minor
11th Dec 2007, 13:26
ABX,

Categorising someone as an anti-gun dweeb would surely be juvenille and inane.

It is quite possible to be both "anti-gun" and, having been paid a salary to fire anything ranging from an IW Steyr or Minimi up to an M-72/79, not be a dweeb who has never fired a gun.

airgrunt
11th Dec 2007, 13:34
Hey ABX, you wouldn't be a member of the SSAA by any chance ?

ABX
11th Dec 2007, 13:58
airgrunt, card carrying!

Sunray, I've considered your comments and changed it to campaigners.

When I wrote the original line I had in minds eye the usual type of shot the cameras love - mother holding young'un in city street, giving her 'learned opinion' on guns.

As per the incident in Colorado Springs over the weekend where an armed guard shot dead a killer, thereby saving further loss of life, the same could be applied to numerous other incidents worldwide, if we were allowed to carry concealed firearms.

In the Port Arthur killings, at most Martin Bryant would have shot 2 or 3 instead of 53!

Any thinking person reading this debate, put yourself in the picture, you, with .45 semi auto hand gun in an underarm holster, inside your jacket, are having afternoon tea with your loved ones in the Broad Arrow Café, Port Arthur. As fate would have it Bryant is facing away from you as he takes his first two shots... would anyone seriously NOT draw the gun and shoot him, thereby saving your own loved ones and 51 other people from harm?

I have followed this debate for years but nobody has been able to convince me that they wouldn't take that shot if they had the gun and were in the right place at the right time.

Dushan
11th Dec 2007, 14:55
Armed security staff at a church??????

From Denver Post:
"Assam worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.
Boyd said Assam was the one who suggested the church beef up its security Sunday following the Arvada shooting, which it did. The pastor credited the security plan and the extra security for preventing further bloodshed.
Boyd said there are 15 to 20 security people at the church. All are volunteers but the only ones armed are those who are licensed to carry weapons.
The security guards are members of the church who are screened and not "mercenaries that we hire to walk around our campus to provide security," Boyd said.
About 7,000 people were on the church campus at the time of the shooting, said Boyd."

So as you can see this is not some 75 person congregation with armed security guards. There have to be security pesonnel on site when you have 7000 people gather. Maybe those, without mentioning any names, that have "football" matches where hooligans show up, should have armed guards... (oops! does this fall in the category of telling others how to run their country?)

Sunray Minor
11th Dec 2007, 15:05
ABX,

I think if you were planning to carry out a gun rampage and thought you were going to come up against armed resistance, you would merely carry out your massacre in a slightly different manner.

If someone came marching in to my place of work randomly shooting, I would feel even more at risk if another half dozen others decided to also open up with their weapons. Where would the bullets go? Who would the police identify as friend or foe? And in reality, how frequently does the armed intervention of bystanders de-escalate a situation? It is entirely probable that a potential shooter would be more prone to opening fire if they felt at greater risk from armed civilians and have-a-go-heroes.

Everyone rates themselves in the quickdraw contest, possibly a result of too many Die Hard movies, but the reality is very different.

Dushan
11th Dec 2007, 15:19
I think if you were planning to carry out a gun rampage and thought you were going to come up against armed resistance, you would merely carry out your massacre in a slightly different manner.


Yes indeed: Somwhere where there is no chance of coming "up against armed resistance".

Taildragger67
11th Dec 2007, 15:21
AMF,

Thanks. As an Australian/Brit, I believe that limits to arms are justified because some fools have spoilt it for those of us who like to use weapons in a safe manner, and it continues to amaze me that the US hasn't drawn the link, but as to your arguments on the US Constitution... :ok:. Thank you for the reasoned debate, I am now wiser for reading your posts.

ABX
11th Dec 2007, 15:23
Sunray,

Do you shoot? Have you ever shot? The answer to this question is drummed into a shooter from the very earliest days:

Where would the bullets go?

Into an inanimate object behind the target. Why? Because from the very first moment a person becomes involved in shooting it is ingrained into them to only take a shot when there is no danger to person or property behind the target in case the bullet misses or travels through the target and continues on its trajectory.

This is a basic rule that we all apply by matter of reflex now, the same as "treat every gun as if it is loaded" and "never under any circumstances, point a gun at another person, even if it is empty" and "treat guns with respect, use them, don't play with them", etc., etc.

It all basic stuff really and the general (non shooting public) have the wrong idea because they think its like Hollywood makes it out to be with people waving the things around all over the place, pointing them at people and behaving like cowboys.

That sort of behaviour will see you kicked out of the SSAA or any gun club pretty quickly.


Everyone rates themselves in the quickdraw contest, possibly a result of too many Die Hard movies, but the reality is very different.


I doubt you can substantiate that, there are plenty of people here on these very forums who have used a gun in self defence and were quick enough to beat the bad guy. I won't name names but their stories are right here if you search.

goudie
11th Dec 2007, 15:36
My daughter lives on a remote farm with her husband and children in N. Califonia. When her husband is away she sleeps with a repeat action shotgun by the bed.
She knows how and when to use it!
I'd rather she had a gun than not.
The area is low on crime but there's always some nutter around as we have seen many times.
Ownership of guns is part of the American culture and has been for 250 years. Realistically it will never be otherwise.
Comparisons with the U.K. are rather pointless and odious.

ABX
11th Dec 2007, 15:46
goudie,

Mate I am in agreement with your daughter, my loved ones can shoot (safely) too.

Unfortunately TC thinks your we're all rednecks and wants to deprive your daughter of the comfort of her gun!

I make these arguments to try and postpone that.

Sunray Minor
11th Dec 2007, 19:08
ABX,

Yes, I happen to have popped off a shot or two in my time.

I can tell you, when the adrenaline gets pumping all kinds of things happen to trigger fingers and different neurons shut down or fire up. Safety skills can go out the window for sure, and I very much doubt Kath or Kim down at the local shopping mall, armed with a 9mm or conveniently located 5.56 semi-automatic rifle are going to adhere to the lofty safety skills you expect down at the range.

If the have-a-go hero is going to hold fire because the office wall behind his target isn't made out of 3" thick reinforced concrete, what use is his/her weapon anyway? On the other hand if they shoot, there is a very real chance of things getting even more out of hand. My picture of these gun rampages is that there is often only a very sketchy picture of who the suspect is, panic everywhere and general chaos. By drawing a pistol in such a situation and taking shots you are every bit as likely to be bringing risk to yourself and others.

Everyone rates themselves in the quickdraw contest, possibly a result of too many Die Hard movies, but the reality is very different.
I doubt you can substantiate that, there are plenty of people here on these very forums who have used a gun in self defence and were quick enough to beat the bad guy.

In our games of "laser-strike" I've ended up getting beeped on too many occasions to remember...and I would humbly say I wasn't bad at my job. I've had members of enemy party pop up in front of me when I've had scope to eye and as ready as I could possibly be and I've still been all too aware they got off the first shot at me. You'd be amazed. It's no game and no joke and I very much doubt an armed populace is going to have either the enthusiasm or the experience of shooting running Russians to provide much opposition to your typical masked gunman. I find it far more likely they will end up being conveniently located bloody ammunition stashes or pose a greater risk to anyone around them.

Sunray Minor
11th Dec 2007, 19:16
Goudie,

I wonder what the statistics are on:

a) your daughter finding the weapon of use in fending off an attacker

OR

b) finding the weapon used against her in such a circumstance, being involved in an incident with the weapon (cleaning, UD, whatever), the weapon becoming a quick, painless and convenient way out in a moment of despair, or a member of her family or a visitor to the household becoming an accidental victim of the firearm.

goudie
11th Dec 2007, 20:03
I wonder what the statistics are on:

My daughter doesn't give a damn about statistics (we've seen plenty of those on this thread) but she does give a damn about having the means to protect her kids should some asshole comes prowling round with intent to rob or harm.

anotherthing
11th Dec 2007, 21:04
Goudie

Maybe if it wasn't so easy to get guns in the US, your daughter would not need to have a shotgun by her bed??

Anyway, shotguns on farms are one thing - but ordinary citizens have the right by constitution to buy assault rifles and handguns (which are easily concealed compared to a rifle or shotgun) :ugh:- you sow what you reap I'm afraid.

off centre
11th Dec 2007, 21:09
Oh, dear. Twenty-three, now twenty-four, posts and not one American involved. Perhaps we are a tad buttinski?

con-pilot
11th Dec 2007, 21:20
No, not really, we're just very bored with the same old stuff being posted. Well at least I am.

Posters here, despite the originator of this thread best intentions, have called citizens if the United States;

Idiots, poorly educated, barbarians, blamed Bush, etc, etc, etc.
I'm sick and tired of it.


However, thanks to all of you folks outside the US that have help defend our rights. :ok:

Dushan
11th Dec 2007, 22:15
con-pilot
you are welcome. We stand on guard for thee (too).

BlooMoo
11th Dec 2007, 22:43
...just very bored with the same old stuff being posted. Well at least I am.
Posters here, despite the originator of this thread best intentions, have called citizens if the United States;
Idiots, poorly educated, barbarians, blamed Bush, etc, etc, etc.
I'm sick and tired of it.

Audience livecam from CP's latest lecture...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Tumbleweed_rolling.jpg/800px-Tumbleweed_rolling.jpg

:}:}:}

AirScrew
11th Dec 2007, 23:41
I, also, dont like the way this has just degenerated into an anti US slagging session.

But what we have concluded (my summary), is that the US folk strongly defend their right to bear arms, the Supreme Court no longer believes that this is upheld by the Constitution or the BOR, but many US folks still believe it is their right, and that that Supreme court cannot overule this.
It is their right to believe this.

Meanwhile, many non-US people believe this is a crazy, outdated notion, and has no parallel in any westernised, post civil-revolution culture. We are also concerned that the gun-touting US culture should either end, or stay firmly in the US.

The End??:rolleyes::rolleyes:

brickhistory
11th Dec 2007, 23:52
I'm going to regret this but,

the Supreme Court no longer believes that this is upheld by the Constitution or the BOR,

From where did you draw that conclusion?

The Supreme Court has either supported the 2d Amendment arguements in the past or refused to hear cases dealing with it - essentially the same thing.

There is a case they have agreed to hear in March 2008 that does deal with the issue, albeit in a limited way.

So, again I ask, in a polite, reasoned way: From where do your draw this conclusion?

I do not recall any posters here stating that. I have said that I would not follow such a ruling should they (Supreme Court) make it as it abrogates the Bill of Rights. Thus, I don't believe they (Supreme Court) would rule thusly.

boofhead
11th Dec 2007, 23:55
It's amazing how people will not change their minds no matter how many facts are presented. Opinions rule!
I am an Aus citizen living in the US and frankly am ashamed to read the drivel some Aussies have written here. They are brainwashed I am afraid. Not the calibre of person they were even thirty years ago. Look at the willingness they now have to embrace carbon taxes, putting money in AlGore's pocket for some crazy reason just because it feels good.
The stories about guns being used against the home owner in the event of a home invasion for example ("you are more likely to have your gun used against you, or have an accident with it etc...") are BS put about by liars who have an agenda and the people who have already rolled over and are too dumb to realise it believe it because otherwise they would have to admit they were wrong.
Confine your comments to facts and it will not sound the same. Check your facts first though, something you might not want to do since feelings are more important, right?
Statistics are available, but not always current. The US murder rates have been falling for several years, but most studies are from four or more years ago, so they are better than presented. In Aus and UK, the murder rate is rising. Would not surprise me to see them cross over one day, since the policies in those countries support higher crime.
Watch out, I am using opinion, so wipe that comment.
Most murders in the US are black on black, due to drugs. The murder rate among white people, living traditionally as most do, working for a living, going to the movies once in a while and with their kids in school, is actually lower than it is in Aus or UK.. Go ahead., look it up.
(During the 1980s and early 1990s, there were dramatic increases in homicides committed by young black males - those 18-24 - but the figures sank in recent years. In 1985, 133.7 young black men per 100,000 committed murder. By 1993, the figure soared to 347.6 per 100,000. It began to decline in 1994 and by 1997 had dropped to 246.4 per 100,000. From 1976 through 1997, 85 percent of white murder victims were killed by whites, while 94 percent of black victims were killed by blacks. During the same period, 13 percent of white murder victims were killed by blacks, while about 6 percent of black victims were killed by whites. )(and remember that the black population is only 12 percent of the total population, to get an idea of how few murders are committed by white men).
(And in case you think I am singling out black men as the only ones able to murder, look at this concerning left-handers: There is " strong support for the idea that, at least in primitive societies with higher levels of violence, lefties thrive. For example, when they singled out the Dioula of Burkina Faso in West Africa, where the murder rate was only 0.013 murders per 1,000 residents each year, they found only 3.4 percent of the population were left-handers. Data from the Eipo of Indonesia, meanwhile, where there are three murders per 1,000 people each year, show 27 percent of the population is left-handed. " So watch out for those dastardly left handers!)
The US murder rate is around 5 per 100,000. Half of those murders happen using guns. The murder rate in Mexico is 17.5 per 100,000, yet they have one of the most stringent gun controls in the world. Russia has absolutely no guns legally in private hands, yet their rate is 30 per 100,000. Israel's murder rate is only 1.4 yet they are all armed, and there is constant violence there in the streets, with terrorists around every corner. Switzerland is 2.7, yet all male adults are required to own a gun. Wait, this cannot be true, you say. I know that guns are the cause of murder, it is obvious since guns are designed to kill people and maybe guns can do that all by themselves, you say. Don't let any facts intrude there, Cobber. Shine a light through one earhole and see if it comes out the other side, then go on believing the BS fed to you by those with an agenda.
You guys should put up signs warning when facts are in the air, lest you find one and have to change your minds, giving up the pre-conceived opinions you are so much in love with. How about this one from the Brisbane Courier-Mail? : "AUSTRALIA'S murder rate was up last year, with males making up about two thirds of the country's 281 victims (that would be the same as 4500 people being murdered in the US if the same rate was applied). According to new figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), there were eight per cent more victims of murder in 2006 than in 2005, when 259 people were reported murdered. That means the murder rate in 2006 was 1.4 per 100,000 people, up from 1.3 the year before. Males were twice as likely to be the victims of murder, and almost 80 per cent of attempted murder victims were also male. About 40 per cent of murder victims were aged 25-44 years. A weapon was used in 63 per cent of murders, with a knife the most common type. Firearms were involved in only 16 per cent of murders. " And guess what? That murder rate is higher than it is for white males living in the USA!
Of course the murder rate amongst the black population is terrible, and needs to be addressed. But it normally does not affect the general population, since it is driven by drug dealers and the answer is not to take away their guns but to take away the profit in killing each other. It is hard not to opinionate, isn't it.
Never mind, mates, if I can do it; go ahead and stick with your opinions. If you have to concede that you are wrong about guns, you might find you are wrong about other things too, and what price your self-esteem then?

AirScrew
12th Dec 2007, 00:03
I'm going to regret this but,

Quote:
the Supreme Court no longer believes that this is upheld by the Constitution or the BOR,
From where did you draw that conclusion?

The Supreme Court has either supported the 2d Amendment arguements in the past or refused to hear cases dealing with it - essentially the same thing.

There is a case they have agreed to hear in March 2008 that does deal with the issue, albeit in a limited way.

So, again I ask, in a polite, reasoned way: From where do your draw this conclusion?

I do not recall any posters here stating that. I have said that I would not follow such a ruling should they (Supreme Court) make it as it abrogates the Bill of Rights. Thus, I don't believe they (Supreme Court) would rule thusly.

Read it from the US folks further up in the thread....

Um... lifting...
12th Dec 2007, 00:10
Been reading this thread with some interest (except the baited and unbaited hooks, which are legion) and hadn't thought to weigh in. IRT whether having or not having a firearm is a good thing, I won't express an opinion... however...

A constitutional monarchy with no written constitution (as in Great Britain); a pure democracy (as represented by say, Switzerland, as a fine example); and a constitutional republic with a written constitution (as in the United States) are three very, very different governmental animals.
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (the first ten of which make up the Bill of Rights) aren't the easiest thing in the world to legislate.

This may be where some of our non-American types go astray. Just as I find the art of slow-bowling rather challenging to understand, I have some difficulty comprehending the British form of government. I have met few Britons who understand the subtleties of the infield fly rule or the squeeze play or indeed, even what those are. That said, the "right to bear arms" goes back rather a long way and it would be quite correct to say that there are numerous opinions on exactly what it means. Once you take a side on the gun/no gun issue and wade into that metaphysical swamp you're probably never coming out, at least not with your pride intact. I shall grant that the below is taken from Wikipedia, but it is accurate according to my recollections of Civics.

If one comes down to it (which I for one have no intention of doing), it originated as a responsibility and continued as Common Law and was codified in the U.S. Constitution (more or less, depending upon who you ask), so appears it would be best to blame the British, at least partially.

The right to keep and bear arms did not originate fully-formed in the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights) in 1791; rather, the Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) was the codification of the six centuries old responsibility to keep and bear arms for king and country that was inherited from the English Colonists that settled North America, tracing its origin back to the Assize of Arms of 1181 that occurred during the reign of Henry II. Through being codified in the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution), the common law right was continued and guaranteed for the People, and statutory law enacted subsequently by Congress cannot extinguish the pre-existing common law right to keep and bear arms. This right is often presented in the United States as synonymous with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), although this belief is controversial among some factions and is not subscribed to by all.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) Protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.“ 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. ”There's a truly funny book called Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation written by a British woman named Lynne Truss. It bemoans the state of punctuation in Britain and the U.S. Lady has a point. Unfortunately, the framers of the U.S. Constitution didn't have this tome at their disposal... and they frequently made their 's' look like the 'f'.

AirScrew
12th Dec 2007, 00:23
If it came down to it, it comes down to Common Law, so appears it would be best to blame the British.

Aha. So Mea Culpe?? I admit it was all our fault... ;);)

BlooMoo
12th Dec 2007, 00:35
This may be where some of our non-American types go astray

This may be where some of our American types go astray
BM:ugh:

Um... lifting...
12th Dec 2007, 00:42
Indeed... and thereby hangs everyone's argument... stunning, really.

brickhistory
12th Dec 2007, 00:46
This may be where some of our American types go astray

But we are not stating or even suggesting that you should change your laws or society.

The reverse is not true.

As if you had a say in our democracy.

Which you don't.





AAAAANNNNND I'm out.............................