View Full Version : The Fabric for the Federal Goverment vs the states continues to deteriorate
SUBMAN1
02-22-09, 01:13 PM
It is Montana this time:
-S
House shoots down federal gun controls
Posted on Feb. 14
By KAHRIN DEINES of the Associated Press
http://www.missoulian.com/art/pixel.gif
HELENA (AP) - Montana lawmakers fired another shot in battles for states’ rights as they supported letting some Montana gun owners and dealers skip reporting their transactions to the federal government.
Under House Bill 246, firearms made in Montana and used in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation. The same would be true for firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold in the state.
“What we need here is for Montana to be able to handle Montana’s business and affairs,” Republican Rep. Joel Boniek told fellow lawmakers Saturday. The wilderness guide from Livingston defeated Republican incumbent Bruce Malcolm in last spring’s election.
Boniek’s measure aims to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, which is the legal basis for most gun regulation in the United States. The bill potentially could release Montanans from both federal gun registration requirements and dealership licensing rules. Since the state has no background-check laws on its own books, the legislation also could free gun purchasers from that requirement.
“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” Boniek said. “But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It’s about state rights.”
The House voted 64-36 for the bill on Saturday. If it clears a final vote, the measure will go to the Senate.
House Republicans were joined by 14 Democrats in passing the measure.
“I would hope that our U.S. Supreme Court would begin to retreat from what I think is an abusive interpretation of our interstate commerce clause,” said Rep. Deborah Kottel, a Democrat from Great Falls who supports the measure.
That clause in the U.S. Constitution grants Congress authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states. The Supreme Court has handled cases seeking to limit the clause’s application in recent years. In 2005, the court upheld federal authority to regulate marijuana under the clause, even when its use is limited to noncommercial purposes n such as medical reasons n and it is grown and used within a state’s borders.
The Montana bill follows fears here and elsewhere that the election of Barack Obama as president will trigger more gun regulation. In the months before Obama’s inauguration, Montanans rushed to stock up on guns, pushing gun sales beyond normal benchmarks despite the recession.
Opponents of the measure worry lax regulations in the state could lead to a similar surge in both gun sales and gun manufacturing.
“Who are we bringing in and is this the kind of business we want to have in this state?” asked Rep. Sue Malek, D-Missoula. “I want our state to be recognized as a state that cares about people, and that cares about the environment.”
The bill is one of a number the Legislature is considering that may extend gun rights in Montana.
Earlier in the week, the House passed another measure, HB228, that would let Montanans carry concealed weapons in city limits without having permits.
On Saturday the House Judiciary Committee narrowly passed a resolution that affirms Montanans’ right to carry weapons in national parks and wildlife refuges.
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/02/14/bnews/br26.txt
GoldenRivet
02-22-09, 01:20 PM
responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty. :salute:
SUBMAN1
02-22-09, 01:36 PM
responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty. :salute:True, but even though firearms is the subject of the bill, it is not what the bill is about. This is what the bill is about:
“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” Boniek said. “But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It’s about state rights.”
-S
CaptainHaplo
02-22-09, 04:21 PM
I am greatly encouraged by this. First let me point out it was a DEMOCRAT speaking on this - it goes to show that you cannot define a person by the letter beside their name, but by the view of government they hold. So kudos go to those who supported this.
I am telling you all - this is just one more shot across the bow of the federal government. Its going to continue to escalate.
States are realizing that without all the unfunded mandates - and not having to send tax money to DC - they could be doing alot more of the things THEY wanted to without having to answer to big brother. The time is coming that there is going to be a really big change in the way our country does things - and a return to what the nation was founded on.
Good find!
http://www.missoulian.com/art/pixel.gif
The bill potentially could release Montanans from both federal gun registration requirements and dealership licensing rules. Since the state has no background-check laws on its own books, the legislation also could free gun purchasers from that requirement.
Oh, those Montanians....
They know how to bring the crazy.....:doh:
sunvalleyslim
02-22-09, 11:58 PM
Go Montana.................:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
A Very Super Market
02-23-09, 01:09 AM
Wait, are you saying that its good that Montana doesn't want background checks?
Tchocky
02-23-09, 05:09 AM
responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty. :salute:
Cornerstone?
I'd say the entire Bill of Rights fits that label.
responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty. :salute:
Cornerstone?
I'd say the entire Bill of Rights fits that label.
Only if you are not fixated on killing other people.
responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty. :salute:
Cornerstone?
I'd say the entire Bill of Rights fits that label.
Only if you are not fixated on killing other people.
What makes you foreign guys think you know better?
SUBMAN1
02-23-09, 09:04 AM
What makes you foreign guys think you know better?I'd like to know that too?
Jealousy of our independence and freedom is the only thing I can think of as the real reason.
-S
Max2147
02-23-09, 09:29 AM
responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty. :salute: I know my view won't be popular here, but I've just never understood statements like that.
I understand why people like their guns. I'm from a rural state, I know plenty of hunters, and I go to school in DC so I certainly understand why somebody might want one for self-defense.
But as THE cornerstone of American liberty? I just don't get it. I've been to plenty of countries with very restrictive gun laws, and I certainly haven't felt less free because of it. In fact, I feel more free in a country where the gun laws are so restrictive that the regular police don't even carry guns. To me a fair and open judicial system where I can effectively defend myself against the government is far more important to my liberty, not to mention the power to legally overthrow my government via the ballot box.
Now I'm not necessarily in favor of further gun control. But I think it ought to be seen as a crime issue, not a liberty issue.
And yes, I'm aware that I probably just kicked a hornets' nest.
What makes you foreign guys think you know better?I'd like to know that too?
Jealousy of our independence and freedom is the only thing I can think of as the real reason.
-S
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
subman1, we(or well, most europeans) dont need assault rifles to feel safe...unlike you
What makes you foreign guys think you know better?I'd like to know that too?
Jealousy of our independence and freedom is the only thing I can think of as the real reason.
-S
Yeah, jealousy and hate of the US for their freedom and independance *nods*
sure, that must be it, heared it so often, must be the case.
@August, who at least asked, I do not know better. But yanno, there is nothing much else within the design envelope of a weapon but to kill. And a bit of common sense tells that a tool intended for killing is well...used for killing.
Aramike
02-23-09, 01:19 PM
But as THE cornerstone of American liberty? I just don't get it. Personally, I find the First Ammendment to be more of a so-called "cornerstone", but I can see how gun-ownership could also be considered such.
The reason being is that guns (and threat of force) are the only real way for a citizen to ensure and defend the practice of the remainder of his rights. Without a practical way of having this assurance, the citizenry would ultimately be at the mercy of whoever was simply stronger.
Aramike
02-23-09, 01:41 PM
@August, who at least asked, I do not know better. But yanno, there is nothing much else within the design envelope of a weapon but to kill. And a bit of common sense tells that a tool intended for killing is well...used for killing.You have to remember - "killing" in and of itself isn't always a bad thing. If you defensively kill someone who broke into your home to rape your wife, for example, that's not a bad thing. Often times you see people who say "guns kill" then rest their case as though it's just that simple.
Guns are certainly capable of killing, but that very attribute gives them other powers as well. Guns can act as a deterrent, for instance, thereby actually PREVENTING bloodshed. Guns can level the playing field as well, by giving the "weak" as much of a chance to defend their rights against an invader as the "strong" has.
And frankly, people should realize that the only peace that has even been known throughout modern human history is one created at gun point.
Respenus
02-23-09, 01:47 PM
And frankly, people should realize that the only peace that has even been known throughout modern human history is one created at gun point.
I believe that 500 million citizens of the European Union would disagree with you on this statement. Yes, I was a result of the Second world war, yet there hasn't been a bullet fired in hate of one country towards another in Europe for more than 50 years (let's forget the Yugoslav war).
As far the second amendment is concerned, you Americans have far outlived the importance of militia which was the basis of your security at the time when you had no standing army and most of your land was not as secure as today. Nowadays, it causes more harm than good and I'd have to look very, very hard to find myself a good reason. Protection yes, but for that we have the police and as far as argument self-defence is concerned, arms are also allowed in Europe. Just not on the scale to enable gang wars, which is another nice (notice the sarcasm) invention of the USA.
I believe that 500 million citizens of the European Union would disagree with you on this statement. Yes, I was a result of the Second world war, yet there hasn't been a bullet fired in hate of one country towards another in Europe for more than 50 years (let's forget the Yugoslav war). But that peaceful 50 years was still created at gun point so Aramikes point remains valid.
As far the second amendment is concerned, you Americans have far outlived the importance of militia which was the basis of your security at the time when you had no standing army and most of your land was not as secure as today.
Standing armies do not secure liberty, they secure governments.
Nowadays, it causes more harm than good
Says who? Maybe without the 2nd amendment providing an inhibitor to tyranny our government would have turned into a dictatorship by now. Can you say it wouldn't have?
Protection yes, but for that we have the police
Police are not there to defend you. They are there to catch law breakers. Small comfort that your murderer gets caught after the fact i'd say.
and as far as argument self-defence is concerned, arms are also allowed in Europe. Just not on the scale to enable gang wars, which is another nice (notice the sarcasm) invention of the USA.
The USA invented gangs? Could you explain that please? Because i'm pretty sure Europe has had its share of gangsand criminal organizations which predate the USA. The Sicilian Mafia for one...
You are right, August. Peace is bought by violence more often then not. As sad it is, nobody is as dellusional as to think all problems are solveable without violence. For that humans are simply too stupid in general. Too often violence appears to be the easy solution, humanitarian issues not playing a role in descision making.
but...
Nowadays, it causes more harm than good
Says who? Maybe without the 2nd amendment providing an inhibitor to tyranny our government would have turned into a dictatorship by now. Can you say it wouldn't have?
...is pretty self evident. Arms in your country have not prohibited the Bush government of comitting any of it's crimes. It has not stopped rights taken away from US citizens in various situations, the patriot act and spying on it's own people. On the opposite, especially gun owners agreed to the Bush policies. In sofar I have little doubt most americans would support a dictatorship as long as this dicatorships acted as if to please domestic american interests. It's always astonishing to see that you guys still belive a dictatorship comes up over night and acts against the ppl. It does not work that way. Living in a country that had a brutal dictatorship compared to the liberal and free society nowadays is an eye opener in this regard.
Oh, and about jealousy for freedom and stuff, I can assure you most european countries enjoy more freedom in their daily lifes, especially when it comes to sexual, political and religious tolerance, then the US.
And why it is more harmful? The heck, this legal weap0ons thing created one of the largest and most lethal crime scenes found within the western world. Armed up to the teeth it is no wonder US police acts as harsh, american prisons are the most overcrowded and dangerous prisons on this planet and you guys still have to refer to the death penalty. A vicious circle indeed, a Pandoras Box opend that hardly can be closed again.
And about the Police, what the heck, certainly they are there to defend me. That is why I and every other citizen pays their wages. And the police in Europe is actually capable of letting me walk whereever I want and still feeling safe.
Example, when I was out on a field in the middle of Minnesota once, sleeping in the car I rented in my very first US trip, a sherrif came up to me, telling me that neighboutrs called him for a suspect figure out there and then told me to move to a secure area like a highway truck stop because I certainly wouldn't want to find myself knived in the morning. He was cool, even had a german last name he was proud to present to me with.
Could have been worse, in other countries I even might have gotten arrested, but the heck, there I realized what a paranoid country the US really is, at least for western standarts, calling the sheriff for me just sleeping there and the sheriff warning me of beeing murdered. That's not what I call a free society, when you can't feel secure even in the middle of a darn field in the middle of nowhere!
Even the mafia here is as smart as to not start gang wars or killing people outside the organisation to a degree it gets public attention.
And you ask what harm it does, the brutal kill figures for accidents and homicide figures not even taken into account?
@August, who at least asked, I do not know better. But yanno, there is nothing much else within the design envelope of a weapon but to kill. And a bit of common sense tells that a tool intended for killing is well...used for killing.You have to remember - "killing" in and of itself isn't always a bad thing. If you defensively kill someone who broke into your home to rape your wife, for example, that's not a bad thing. Often times you see people who say "guns kill" then rest their case as though it's just that simple.
Guns are certainly capable of killing, but that very attribute gives them other powers as well. Guns can act as a deterrent, for instance, thereby actually PREVENTING bloodshed. Guns can level the playing field as well, by giving the "weak" as much of a chance to defend their rights against an invader as the "strong" has.
And frankly, people should realize that the only peace that has even been known throughout modern human history is one created at gun point.
Killing is always a bad thing, no matter if done voluntarily or because one is forced to do so. Sometimes, and if only in pure self defense, it is nessecary, but that does not make it "not a bad thing" at all. I certainly see where you are coming from, but you talk as if the development of the atomic bomb and the subsequent cold war was "not a bad thing" as it prevented an actual third world war starting. That may be so, but "not bad", nope, that does not quite fit it.
Using guns and having the feel of needing to defend ones own home is not healthy, neither for the individuals mind neither for a society as a whole. And frankly, I do not see the the american founding fathers, ppl I actually have the greaest respect for, foreseeing a paranoid society with a huge crime scene and citizens living in fear from their government and their neighbours alike.
What you guys look at in such discussions all the time is the current situation, not cause and effect and long term effects.
-SWCowboy.
02-23-09, 03:37 PM
I'm moving to Montana when I get out of the Navy - thanks for sharing SUBMAN! :yeah::yeah:
Tchocky
02-23-09, 03:46 PM
I'm moving to Montana when I get out of the Navy - thanks for sharing SUBMAN! :yeah::yeah:
Moving there for the adherence to states' rights or the lack of background checks?
Sailor Steve
02-23-09, 03:51 PM
WOW! I've missed so much!
responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty. :salute:
Cornerstone?
I'd say the entire Bill of Rights fits that label.
The Bill of Rights is just a statement of rights that the government is not supposed to be allowed to touch. The Second Amendment is just the numbering of one of those rights. The actual gun ownership is indeed the cornerstone of all freedoms, simply because the Founders recognized that it was private ownership of personal arms that enabled us to fight against tyranny in the first place - real or percieved.
The actual shooting started when the Royal Governor of Massachussetts sent troops to confiscate the contents of a militia armory, including cannons. So the Revolution actually started as a gun-control issue. You can't get much more 'cornerstone' than that.
And as for police 'protection', there has been more than one case in the courts in which people have tried to sue the police for not responding in time to save lives or property, and the verdict has always been the same: the police have no legal obligation to actually protect citizens from crime, and cannot be taken to court for failing to do so.
I'd rather depend on a .45 than a 911 call to save me and mine from intruders, thank you.
-SWCowboy.
02-23-09, 03:59 PM
I'm moving to Montana when I get out of the Navy - thanks for sharing SUBMAN! :yeah::yeah: Moving there for the adherence to states' rights or the lack of background checks?
Shoot, both - anytime I have to wait 3 days to a week for a handgun check is ridiculous!
I've got no idea why they would do that, perhaps it's a 'cool down' law to let people chill out before they buy a gun and blow someone away out of anger, but waiting 3 days is not going to solve that!
I've got a constitutional right to bear arms, and I'm sick of the gov't trying to chip away at it....
...is pretty self evident. Arms in your country have not prohibited the Bush government of comitting any of it's crimes. It has not stopped rights taken away from US citizens in various situations, the patriot act and spying on it's own people.
What Bush crimes? Can you point to any specific examples of the former President being convicted of a particular crime? I think you are being effected by Democrat election year propaganda. You'll notice that nobody has repealed the Patriot act, which BTW was enacted by Congress NOT the President.
On the opposite, especially gun owners agreed to the Bush policies. In sofar I have little doubt most americans would support a dictatorship as long as this dicatorships acted as if to please domestic american interests. It's always astonishing to see that you guys still belive a dictatorship comes up over night and acts against the ppl. It does not work that way. Living in a country that had a brutal dictatorship compared to the liberal and free society nowadays is an eye opener in this regard.
All pure supposition on your part certainly not backed up by the facts.
Oh, and about jealousy for freedom and stuff, I can assure you most european countries enjoy more freedom in their daily lifes, especially when it comes to sexual, political and religious tolerance, then the US.
Actually I've lived in your country and I have German relatives. Now while your comparatively fledgling democracy is certainly sufficient, from what i have seen it is no better than ours when it comes to any of those things.
And why it is more harmful? The heck, this legal weap0ons thing created one of the largest and most lethal crime scenes found within the western world. Armed up to the teeth it is no wonder US police acts as harsh, american prisons are the most overcrowded and dangerous prisons on this planet and you guys still have to refer to the death penalty. A vicious circle indeed, a Pandoras Box opend that hardly can be closed again.
Legal weapons have not created any "scene". You're just imagining that to be the case. Our nation being made up of immigrants has a heckuva lot more to do with our crime rate than anything else.
And about the Police, what the heck, certainly they are there to defend me. That is why I and every other citizen pays their wages. And the police in Europe is actually capable of letting me walk whereever I want and still feeling safe.
oh c'mon we both know there are areas you wouldn't dare to tread in especially after dark, your own people have mentioned them here on this forum.
As for the police. I beg to differ. What exactly do the Politzei do to prevent crime in your country that our police do not do here? Do they escort you around? Do they monitor your home for you when you're away?
Example, when I was out on a field in the middle of Minnesota once, sleeping in the car I rented in my very first US trip, a sherrif came up to me, telling me that neighboutrs called him for a suspect figure out there and then told me to move to a secure area like a highway truck stop because I certainly wouldn't want to find myself knived in the morning. He was cool, even had a german last name he was proud to present to me with.
Could have been worse, in other countries I even might have gotten arrested, but the heck, there I realized what a paranoid country the US really is, at least for western standarts, calling the sheriff for me just sleeping there and the sheriff warning me of beeing murdered.
Let's dissect this story shall we? You had driven onto and were sleeping on someones private property in a rented car and:
A: The neighbors reported the presence of a stranger in a rental car in someones field.
B. A cop arrives to investigate.
C. Instead of running you in he took the time to find out your situation.
D. He gave you just a gentle warning designed to make you better consider the potential ramifications of your actions and let you go on your merry way.
That sure doesn't sound to me like an example of how dangerous it is over here.
That's not what I call a free society, when you can't feel secure even in the middle of a darn field in the middle of nowhere!
You seem like a nice guy Bewolf so let me give you a piece of advice. What you "feel" does not necessarily reflect reality. People felt secure on the Titanic,... until it sank.
Max2147
02-23-09, 04:33 PM
WOW! I've missed so much!
responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty. :salute:
Cornerstone?
I'd say the entire Bill of Rights fits that label. The Bill of Rights is just a statement of rights that the government is not supposed to be allowed to touch. The Second Amendment is just the numbering of one of those rights. The actual gun ownership is indeed the cornerstone of all freedoms, simply because the Founders recognized that it was private ownership of personal arms that enabled us to fight against tyranny in the first place - real or percieved.
The actual shooting started when the Royal Governor of Massachussetts sent troops to confiscate the contents of a militia armory, including cannons. So the Revolution actually started as a gun-control issue. You can't get much more 'cornerstone' than that.
And as for police 'protection', there has been more than one case in the courts in which people have tried to sue the police for not responding in time to save lives or property, and the verdict has always been the same: the police have no legal obligation to actually protect citizens from crime, and cannot be taken to court for failing to do so.
I'd rather depend on a .45 than a 911 call to save me and mine from intruders, thank you.
The 2nd Amendment wasn't meant to protect the people from the government, it was meant to protect the country (government included) from foreign invaders. We didn't have a standing army at the time, so we needed a militia to protect the country, and that militia needed to be armed for obvious reasons.
Nowadays militias are illegal. If you started a militia with an armory today, it would be legal for the government to shut you down and confiscate your guns, even with the 2nd Amendment.
If an American government really wanted to become a dictatorship, they would be able to do it even with the 2nd Amendment. A bunch of handguns won't stop a determined dictator with the military on their side. Red Dawn was a great movie, but so was Seven Days in May.
And frankly, I do not see the the american founding fathers, ppl I actually have the greaest respect for, foreseeing a paranoid society with a huge crime scene and citizens living in fear from their government and their neighbours alike.
Oh and care to give us a link or something that actually proves we have such a "huge crime scene" compared to, say Europe?
Aramike
02-23-09, 05:24 PM
Using guns and having the feel of needing to defend ones own home is not healthy, neither for the individuals mind neither for a society as a whole.You're confusing your idealism for realism.
It is CERTAINLY healthy to acknowledge the FACT that there are bad people in this world who do bad things to other people. Feeling the need to defend oneself from these people is not unhealthy in any respect.
Sure, ideally there wouldn't be bad people who couldn't care less about the law. But we don't live in that world.And frankly, I do not see the the american founding fathers, ppl I actually have the greaest respect for, foreseeing a paranoid society with a huge crime scene and citizens living in fear from their government and their neighbours alike. Well, first off, those are the same Founding Fathers that gave us the 2nd Ammendment to begin with, and they did it under the auspices of the possibility that the people may have to rise against a totalitarian government.
Secondly, don't confuse paranoia and pragmatism. I own guns but I'm not in the least paranoid. However, I also know that should my family ever be in danger, I am capable of protecting them.
Are you?
Aramike
02-23-09, 05:29 PM
The 2nd Amendment wasn't meant to protect the people from the government, it was meant to protect the country (government included) from foreign invaders. We didn't have a standing army at the time, so we needed a militia to protect the country, and that militia needed to be armed for obvious reasons.Actually, its both and the same. The Founding Fathers understood that our form of government was succeptible to an ideological "hijacking" (that is also one of the reasons US Presidents must be natural-born). The 2nd Ammendment was put in place to "provide for the common defense". Remember, the belief was that our rights were granted by God - not a government. So, the idea was that if ANY government (foreign or even our own) threatened our rights, they would essentially become an anathema to the common defense.
Aramike
02-23-09, 07:15 PM
What you "feel" does not necessarily reflect reality. People felt secure on the Titanic,... until it sank.Great point! :arrgh!:
UnderseaLcpl
02-23-09, 08:45 PM
responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty. :salute:
I'd say GR is right on the money with this one. Some of you have valid points concerning "cornerstone-ness:O: ", but consider this;
The cornerstone of any nation is violence, and the threat of violence. If you break a law, you go to jail. No violence there, necessarily. But if you resist the authority of the state to put you in jail, you get violence. Sometimes lethal violence.
If a state attacks another state, violence does the talking.
The U.S. was conceived from tyranny. Or percieved tyranny, if you're loyalist.
The Bill of Rights is a list of protections of freedoms. Limitation on government.
However, if the government attempts to violate those freedoms, the people have the threat of armed violence with which to respond.
That it is why it is the cornerstone. No matter what the state tries to do, the people have the power to bring it down. It is the single greatest freedom gauranteed by the Bill of Rights. No other right protects the people from tyranny as much as that one, and as long as it is "not infringed" upon, the other rights can be defended.
SUBMAN1
02-23-09, 09:11 PM
Yeah, jealousy and hate of the US for their freedom and independance *nods*
sure, that must be it, heared it so often, must be the case.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
subman1, we(or well, most europeans) dont need assault rifles to feel safe...unlike you
Considering your blubbering fools didn't answer the question, the accusation still stands! :D
-S
Platapus
02-23-09, 09:43 PM
Shoot, both - anytime I have to wait 3 days to a week for a handgun check is ridiculous!.
Wait three days? But I am drunk and pissed off NOW!
:D
Max2147
02-23-09, 09:58 PM
responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty. :salute:
I'd say GR is right on the money with this one. Some of you have valid points concerning "cornerstone-ness:O: ", but consider this;
The cornerstone of any nation is violence, and the threat of violence. If you break a law, you go to jail. No violence there, necessarily. But if you resist the authority of the state to put you in jail, you get violence. Sometimes lethal violence.
If a state attacks another state, violence does the talking.
The U.S. was conceived from tyranny. Or percieved tyranny, if you're loyalist.
The Bill of Rights is a list of protections of freedoms. Limitation on government.
However, if the government attempts to violate those freedoms, the people have the threat of armed violence with which to respond.
That it is why it is the cornerstone. No matter what the state tries to do, the people have the power to bring it down. It is the single greatest freedom gauranteed by the Bill of Rights. No other right protects the people from tyranny as much as that one, and as long as it is "not infringed" upon, the other rights can be defended.
Do you really think the state restrains itself out of fear of armed violence? Regardless of gun ownership laws, the state still has the overwhelming advantage in firepower. The people can respond with armed violence, but it would just be suicide.
Besides, according to Weber's widely accepted definition, a state must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in order to exist. So by admitting that a use of force outside of the state's control would be somehow legitimate, a state ceases to exist as a state.
You do have a point that the ultimate power the people have is to bring down the government. But in the US Constitution that power is granted by elections, not by the 2nd Amendment.
If the United States ever gets to the point where private gun ownership is the only thing between us and tyranny, then it's too late. The belief that private citizens armed with guns can save themselves against the might of a state intent on taking away their liberty is an egotistical delusion. I've studied plenty of dictatorships, and I don't know of a single case where private gun ownership did anything to stop an infringement on liberty. A dictatorship rises or falls based on its relation to the military, not gun toting citizens.
UnderseaLcpl
02-23-09, 11:19 PM
@Max2147
I typed a reply but then I had a browser failure and I lost it. :oops:
I'll edit a new reply into this space.
Aramike
02-23-09, 11:41 PM
responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty. :salute:
I'd say GR is right on the money with this one. Some of you have valid points concerning "cornerstone-ness:O: ", but consider this;
The cornerstone of any nation is violence, and the threat of violence. If you break a law, you go to jail. No violence there, necessarily. But if you resist the authority of the state to put you in jail, you get violence. Sometimes lethal violence.
If a state attacks another state, violence does the talking.
The U.S. was conceived from tyranny. Or percieved tyranny, if you're loyalist.
The Bill of Rights is a list of protections of freedoms. Limitation on government.
However, if the government attempts to violate those freedoms, the people have the threat of armed violence with which to respond.
That it is why it is the cornerstone. No matter what the state tries to do, the people have the power to bring it down. It is the single greatest freedom gauranteed by the Bill of Rights. No other right protects the people from tyranny as much as that one, and as long as it is "not infringed" upon, the other rights can be defended.While I agree with everything you said, I disagree that the term "cornerstone" applies.
The "cornerstone" of our nation is the fundamental freedom we receive from God (by God, I mean bestowed not by man) - not the means of securing nor defending said freedom.
That's the reason the First Ammendment is the FIRST Ammendment.
Aramike
02-23-09, 11:47 PM
Do you really think the state restrains itself out of fear of armed violence? Regardless of gun ownership laws, the state still has the overwhelming advantage in firepower. The people can respond with armed violence, but it would just be suicide.The reason for the state's restraint has a lot to do with the fact that the state's armies are made up of citizens who enjoy the same freedoms that the people do.
What do you think is the reason that the members of our armed forces lean overwhelmingly conservative?
More importantly, consider how the same side of the political spectrum historically favors intense gun-control AND cutting our military capability...
UnderseaLcpl
02-23-09, 11:51 PM
While I agree with everything you said, I disagree that the term "cornerstone" applies.
The "cornerstone" of our nation is the fundamental freedom we receive from God (by God, I mean bestowed not by man) - not the means of securing nor defending said freedom.
That's the reason the First Amendment is the FIRST Amendment.
It seems we have different definitions of "cornerstone" in this context.
I have a feeling that I'm in at least partial agreement with what you are saying here, but please elaborate.
Aramike
02-24-09, 12:02 AM
While I agree with everything you said, I disagree that the term "cornerstone" applies.
The "cornerstone" of our nation is the fundamental freedom we receive from God (by God, I mean bestowed not by man) - not the means of securing nor defending said freedom.
That's the reason the First Amendment is the FIRST Amendment.
It seems we have different definitions of "cornerstone" in this context.
I have a feeling that I'm in at least partial agreement with what you are saying here, but please elaborate.I'm just being very literal in the usage of the term "cornerstone".
Ultimately, the idea is that we have a free society - free speech, religion, assembly, and to petition our government regarding grievances. Those are the fundamental principles upon which our entire society - perhaps culture - is founded. The ownership of guns is, quite frankly, a right bestowed in SUPPORT of that First Ammendment. In fact, so is every subsequent ammendment in the Bill of Rights.
While I agree that being able to bear arms indeed secures and maintains our freedoms, it is those freedoms that are ultimately the basis for even our right to bear arms in the first place.
In the end, the point is this: without the rights outlined in the 2nd Ammendment, there is still the possibility that our society could exist today. Without the rights in the 1st, there's no possibility. While I agree that the 2nd Ammendment IS of upmost importance, I disagree that it is the cornerstone and basis of our culture.
That's why I believe the 1st Ammendment is what it is. Think about it: the 1st Ammendment contains SEVERAL distinct items (religion, speech, assembly, redress of grievences) that could have each been a seperate ammendment. There's a reason they are all combined into one, and for that ammendment to be the first.
The "cornerstone" of our nation is the fundamental freedom we receive from God (by God, I mean bestowed not by man) - not the means of securing nor defending said freedom.
But the right to self defense is about as fundamental as it gets.
Aramike
02-24-09, 12:21 AM
The "cornerstone" of our nation is the fundamental freedom we receive from God (by God, I mean bestowed not by man) - not the means of securing nor defending said freedom.
But the right to self defense is about as fundamental as it gets.That's true, but remember: the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense. Also, regardless of gun ownership, one has a right to defend oneself. The means of doing so is in question. And, to my great disdain, many states include a "duty to retreat" rather than the "castle rule". Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't include rights of self-defense.
But more importantly, being allowed to defend oneself isn't the principle this nation was founded upon, or even the purpose of its founding.
Don't get me wrong - the right to bear arms is unequivocally important. But I don't believe it is our nation's cornerstone. Perhaps I'm quibbling over semantics, but I believe the 1st Amendment is just that powerful.
PS: Just noticed I'd been spelling "amendment" with two m's. We need to go back to Roosevelt's "simpul speling".
UnderseaLcpl
02-24-09, 12:27 AM
In the end, the point is this: without the rights outlined in the 2nd Amendment, there is still the possibility that our society could exist today. Without the rights in the 1st, there's no possibility. While I agree that the 2nd Amendment IS of upmost importance, I disagree that it is the cornerstone and basis of our culture.
Yup, different contexts. You're absolutely right in your assertion that the first amendment is a cornerstone of our society. The rights preserved within it are fundamental.
More than any other amendment, it is essential.
However, without the enforcement of the second amendment, it is little more than words. As is any other amendment.
Something of an impasse, no?
but remember: the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense.
Yes it does. being necessary to the security of a free State
Well, arguably.
The "cornerstone" of our nation is the fundamental freedom we receive from God (by God, I mean bestowed not by man) - not the means of securing nor defending said freedom.
But the right to self defense is about as fundamental as it gets.That's true, but remember: the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense. Also, regardless of gun ownership, one has a right to defend oneself. The means of doing so is in question. And, to my great disdain, many states include a "duty to retreat" rather than the "castle rule". Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't include rights of self-defense.
But more importantly, being allowed to defend oneself isn't the principle this nation was founded upon, or even the purpose of its founding.
Don't get me wrong - the right to bear arms is unequivocally important. But I don't believe it is our nation's cornerstone. Perhaps I'm quibbling over semantics, but I believe the 1st Amendment is just that powerful.
PS: Just noticed I'd been spelling "amendment" with two m's. We need to go back to Roosevelt's "simpul speling".
Well you're right Mike, it is semantics. But I for one refuse to order my constitutional rights by their "cornerstoneness". They are all equally vital and all worth defending to the last drop of our blood if necessary.
Max2147
02-24-09, 12:34 AM
Do you really think the state restrains itself out of fear of armed violence? Regardless of gun ownership laws, the state still has the overwhelming advantage in firepower. The people can respond with armed violence, but it would just be suicide.The reason for the state's restraint has a lot to do with the fact that the state's armies are made up of citizens who enjoy the same freedoms that the people do.
What do you think is the reason that the members of our armed forces lean overwhelmingly conservative?
More importantly, consider how the same side of the political spectrum historically favors intense gun-control AND cutting our military capability...
I think that last point is merely a coincidence. If the Republicans suddenly did an about-face and became more pro-gun control than the Dems (without changing their positions on defense and national security) they probably wouldn't lose too much support from the military.
The real reason for government's restraint in America (I hate using the term 'state' here, since our government is hardly a monolithic, unchanging entity) is our overriding respect for institutions and the rule of law. Today that respect is so entrenched and ingrained in our society that it is hard to imagine anybody being able to muster enough power to go against it. If somebody tried, nobody would follow their orders, and without the military's support they wouldn't be able to enforce their will. Since, as you mentioned, our military is well integrated into our society and shares the same general values as the citizenry, that support would be very unlikely.
But if a Seven Days in May style scenario were to occur, where the US military firmly backed an aspiring dictator's attempt to seize power through force, then I don't think they would be stopped by the 2nd Amendment.
Aramike
02-24-09, 12:41 AM
Yup, different contexts. You're absolutely right in your assertion that the first amendment is a cornerstone of our society. The rights preserved within it are fundamental.
More than any other amendment, it is essential.
However, without the enforcement of the second amendment, it is little more than words. As is any other amendment.
Something of an impasse, no?Like I said, I agree with that assessment. Perhaps is a tad chicken-or-egg, but even the 2nd Amendment is little more than words in the end. It's the public's willingness to share and abide in the ideals of our beliefs that ultimately matter. And the 1st Amendment is fundamental idea that uninhibits our people to the concept of freedom.
At least, that is what my studies in the Constitution have led me to conclude the Founding Fathers believed...Yes it does. ... Well, arguably.That one is EXTREMELY arguable, my friend ... the Founding Fathers were extraordinarily careful when using the word "state"...
I don't think they would be stopped by the 2nd Amendment.
Not in a stand up toe to toe struggle, but America is a very big place and the US military, at least in it's present form, simply lacks the size to control all of it. They'd be under constant harassing fire, and the community pressures on the soldiers to desert would be enormous.
Aramike
02-24-09, 12:42 AM
Well you're right Mike, it is semantics. But I for one refuse to order my constitutional rights by their "cornerstoneness". They are all equally vital and all worth defending to the last drop of our blood if necessary.I do agree with that, 100%.
Aramike
02-24-09, 01:02 AM
I think that last point is merely a coincidence. If the Republicans suddenly did an about-face and became more pro-gun control than the Dems (without changing their positions on defense and national security) they probably wouldn't lose too much support from the military.First off, please do be careful ... my point didn't mention Republicans or Democrats ... those terms muddy the issue.
Now, say CONSERVATIVES did an about face and became more pro-control than liberals, well, that wouldn't be very conservative now, would it? That is why, should the Republicans move in that direction, they WOULD lose support from the military. Republican and Democrat ... those are just political parties representing an ideology. The military isn't largly Republican because, well, why not? They are Republican because they share in conservative values. If those values were to change, why you think the people would simply follow along like sheep is a mystery to me.The real reason for government's restraint in America (I hate using the term 'state' here, since our government is hardly a monolithic, unchanging entity) is our overriding respect for institutions and the rule of law. Today that respect is so entrenched and ingrained in our society that it is hard to imagine anybody being able to muster enough power to go against it. If somebody tried, nobody would follow their orders, and without the military's support they wouldn't be able to enforce their will. Since, as you mentioned, our military is well integrated into our society and shares the same general values as the citizenry, that support would be very unlikely.That's kind of what I was saying.
Ultimately, I believe the concept of "of the people, for the people" reigns. Remember, the guys with the guns (our military) are overwhelmingly conservative. They BELIEVE in the principles of our nation.
It would be very hard for a totalitarian government to be able to effectively control people in violation of those people's beliefs. And, for power, that would be exactly what such a government would do.
Our military, and it's member's common, core belief system keeps our government in check. As such, I find it to be of no surprise that the more socialist and liberal elements of our society would like to see our military dismantled.
I'm not saying ALL liberals, by the way (before this turns into one of THOSE threads).But if a Seven Days in May style scenario were to occur, where the US military firmly backed an aspiring dictator's attempt to seize power through force, then I don't think they would be stopped by the 2nd Amendment.Perhaps not, although I believe August responded to this one well.
One has to understand, the 2nd Amendment was written in a time of muskets and grassroots militias and in that context. Indeed, those circumstances are quite antiquated in this day.
But people also forget the other context - the part of being governed. The 2nd Amendment allows us to prevent being governed outside the Constitution, and that idea applies today. By that I mean that the right allows us to defend ourselves against any other entity who simply decides that, because they are stronger than us, they should rule us.
Governments are not the only entities that rule.
...is pretty self evident. Arms in your country have not prohibited the Bush government of comitting any of it's crimes. It has not stopped rights taken away from US citizens in various situations, the patriot act and spying on it's own people.
What Bush crimes? Can you point to any specific examples of the former President being convicted of a particular crime? I think you are being effected by Democrat election year propaganda. You'll notice that nobody has repealed the Patriot act, which BTW was enacted by Congress NOT the President.
On the opposite, especially gun owners agreed to the Bush policies. In sofar I have little doubt most americans would support a dictatorship as long as this dicatorships acted as if to please domestic american interests. It's always astonishing to see that you guys still belive a dictatorship comes up over night and acts against the ppl. It does not work that way. Living in a country that had a brutal dictatorship compared to the liberal and free society nowadays is an eye opener in this regard.
All pure supposition on your part certainly not backed up by the facts.
Oh, and about jealousy for freedom and stuff, I can assure you most european countries enjoy more freedom in their daily lifes, especially when it comes to sexual, political and religious tolerance, then the US.
Actually I've lived in your country and I have German relatives. Now while your comparatively fledgling democracy is certainly sufficient, from what i have seen it is no better than ours when it comes to any of those things.
And why it is more harmful? The heck, this legal weap0ons thing created one of the largest and most lethal crime scenes found within the western world. Armed up to the teeth it is no wonder US police acts as harsh, american prisons are the most overcrowded and dangerous prisons on this planet and you guys still have to refer to the death penalty. A vicious circle indeed, a Pandoras Box opend that hardly can be closed again.
Legal weapons have not created any "scene". You're just imagining that to be the case. Our nation being made up of immigrants has a heckuva lot more to do with our crime rate than anything else.
And about the Police, what the heck, certainly they are there to defend me. That is why I and every other citizen pays their wages. And the police in Europe is actually capable of letting me walk whereever I want and still feeling safe.
oh c'mon we both know there are areas you wouldn't dare to tread in especially after dark, your own people have mentioned them here on this forum.
As for the police. I beg to differ. What exactly do the Politzei do to prevent crime in your country that our police do not do here? Do they escort you around? Do they monitor your home for you when you're away?
Example, when I was out on a field in the middle of Minnesota once, sleeping in the car I rented in my very first US trip, a sherrif came up to me, telling me that neighboutrs called him for a suspect figure out there and then told me to move to a secure area like a highway truck stop because I certainly wouldn't want to find myself knived in the morning. He was cool, even had a german last name he was proud to present to me with.
Could have been worse, in other countries I even might have gotten arrested, but the heck, there I realized what a paranoid country the US really is, at least for western standarts, calling the sheriff for me just sleeping there and the sheriff warning me of beeing murdered.
Let's dissect this story shall we? You had driven onto and were sleeping on someones private property in a rented car and:
A: The neighbors reported the presence of a stranger in a rental car in someones field.
B. A cop arrives to investigate.
C. Instead of running you in he took the time to find out your situation.
D. He gave you just a gentle warning designed to make you better consider the potential ramifications of your actions and let you go on your merry way.
That sure doesn't sound to me like an example of how dangerous it is over here.
That's not what I call a free society, when you can't feel secure even in the middle of a darn field in the middle of nowhere!
You seem like a nice guy Bewolf so let me give you a piece of advice. What you "feel" does not necessarily reflect reality. People felt secure on the Titanic,... until it sank.
First of all, August, yes, I am a nice guy, and having you face to face with a beer would make this quite a bit more enjoyable.
Nevertheless, What I "feel" is not just a gut feelings I put out for ideological reasons, as you appear to think, but a perception developed over nearly a decade of intensive US expiriences, including a lot of time in the US with my ex girlfriend, who was american as well. That just as a little reality check you are not talking to a couch intellectual here.
About:
A: The neighbors reported the presence of a stranger in a rental car in someones field.
B. A cop arrives to investigate.
C. Instead of running you in he took the time to find out your situation.
D. He gave you just a gentle warning designed to make you better consider the potential ramifications of your actions and let you go on your merry way.
My quibbles have never been about the US police in it's various forms. Most police folks I got in contact with were quite nice, customs beeing the sad exception.
But I suppose you are so used to the situation over there you can't see the problems.
Actually I've lived in your country and I have German relatives. Now while your comparatively fledgling democracy is certainly sufficient, from what i have seen it is no better than ours when it comes to any of those things.
Well, now this then really comes down to perception. But considering we have quite a couple of gay polititans, who have no problem outing themselves in public, compared to the US, where this has been a much bigger problem especially with republicans, when I look at what is shown at TV, when I see all these fundamental christians, then I stand by what I said. We can argue about this all day long, I am more then willing to listen and be convinced otherwise, but from my POV the situation is pretty clear.
Then again, having studied law in Giessen, a middle sized town in Hessia and having been the location of one of the US largest logistical bases in Europe, this city enjoyed Germany's highest rates of rape and murder before the withdrawel of the US troops following the end of the cold war. That certainly made for a first impression.
Not going more into detail towards your other points here, you may want to read this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-big-question-can-america-ever-be-weaned-off-its-love-affair-with-guns-418597.html
I am sure you will recognize this as polemics and propaganda. And though even I think this article is a bit over the top, it quite nicely illustrates what most of of the western world thinks of US guns, no matter with what theoretical government threats it's justified. A legacy and reputation that started with the Mafia style street wars and constantly beeing reinforced to this day.
And as you asked for statistics, taken from Wikipedia:
As you can see, in a world comparison the US gets away quite nicely
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/International_homicide_rates_2002.jpg/794px-International_homicide_rates_2002.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Intlhomrate.svg/639px-Intlhomrate.svg.png
But compared to western developed nations alone, the figures look a bit different:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Homicide_rate2004.svg/800px-Homicide_rate2004.svg.png
P.S. before I forget.
What Bush crimes? Can you point to any specific examples of the former President being convicted of a particular crime? I think you are being effected by Democrat election year propaganda. You'll notice that nobody has repealed the Patriot act, which BTW was enacted by Congress NOT the President.
I said Bush government, I include both congress and senate in this.
And yes, i do consider torture, kidnapping and conspiration for a war of agression a crime. Conspiration for a war of agression btw was a newly invented case in the Nuremberg trials, used to convict quite a few folks. As a side effect of the Iraq war and the double standarts displayed by the US nowadays, I now consider these trials as pure victor's justice and not worth the paper it's written upon. Luckily these ppl deserved to get shot ayways.
Using guns and having the feel of needing to defend ones own home is not healthy, neither for the individuals mind neither for a society as a whole.You're confusing your idealism for realism.
It is CERTAINLY healthy to acknowledge the FACT that there are bad people in this world who do bad things to other people. Feeling the need to defend oneself from these people is not unhealthy in any respect. Sure, ideally there wouldn't be bad people who couldn't care less about the law. But we don't live in that world.
Talking about "bad" in relation to "fact" is pretty much a contradiction in itself, as "bad" is a purely man made up term describing human related emotions to actions percieved as negative or positive in relation to constantly changing human morales. Hardly a basis to make up "facts". Many ppl over the world consider the US as "bad" and terroristic acts as "self defense". As usual, it's a matter of perception.
That said, I agree you can't always have a go at folks the humaitarian way, it's a neccecity in any given society to live up to the rules to make this society actually work.
But back to topic, I aso agree that ppl need to defend themselves, a right nobody can take away from anybody. The sad part starts where ppl within a society actually have the need to do so. In such a society it is no wonder war, death penalty, murder and violence in general have such a high and accepted standing. And this is also why bad ppl are worse in the US then in other developed countries, as they live by these same rules, just a bit more extreme.
And frankly, I do not see the the american founding fathers, ppl I actually have the greaest respect for, foreseeing a paranoid society with a huge crime scene and citizens living in fear from their government and their neighbours alike. Well, first off, those are the same Founding Fathers that gave us the 2nd Ammendment to begin with, and they did it under the auspices of the possibility that the people may have to rise against a totalitarian government.
Secondly, don't confuse paranoia and pragmatism. I own guns but I'm not in the least paranoid. However, I also know that should my family ever be in danger, I am capable of protecting them.
Are you?
I do not doubt the founding fathers intention. I just say that the road to hell is plastered with good intentions, intentions that most of the time work out differently then planned.
And about protection your family and the preperation for self defense, you have to excuse me, but what else is this but paranoia? The basis for such preprations is the fear of something happening to them. The question if I am prepared is redundant, as I do not share this fear. You could also ask me if I prepared myself for a meteor hit or a volcano eruption.
Nobody ever threatened my family nor anybody else's family I know in a way a gun would have made any difference.
And I sincerly hope you never get into a situation where you have to use yours.
SUBMAN1
02-24-09, 09:06 AM
That's true, but remember: the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense....Yes it does in that it doesn't say it, and when the founding fathers were asked about this, they said that was a god given right.
-S
Aramike
02-24-09, 09:08 AM
I do not doubt the founding fathers intention. I just say that the road to hell is plastered with good intentions, intentions that most of the time work out differently then planned. And how has it worked out differently then planned?
There are a LOT of factors that contribute to the crime rate in the US that aren't gun-related. I noticed you posted homicide rates - check out the percentages of which can be attributed to gun crime.And about protection your family and the preperation for self defense, you have to excuse me, but what else is this but paranoia?
I'm not sure you know the definition of paranoia, so I've linked it for you: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paranoia
There's nothing "irrational" or "intense" about any fear I have of others or for my family. I just pragmatically choose to be prepared should the worst happen. That's not paranoid. That's realism.
It's not paranoia to keep some candles and batteries around in case of a power outtage. It's preparedness.
The fact is that *I* choose to be prepared for that perhaps remote, but potential occurence. You obviously don't. The basis for such preprations is the fear of something happening to them.Umm, no ... you're merely conceptualizing it that way.
The basis of such preparations is the acceptance of the possibility that they may happen.The question if I am prepared is redundant, as I do not share this fear....and yet, you do share in the possibility. Too bad you choose to turn a blind eye to it in order to support your ideology.You could also ask me if I prepared myself for a meteor hit or a volcano eruption.Well, if you lived by an active volcano, it wouldn't be paranoia to be prepared for the event. It would be practical.Nobody ever threatened my family nor anybody else's family I know in a way a gun would have made any difference. This does not mean it won't happen. So again, we're back to the fact that I choose to be prepared for the possibility, and you do not.And I sincerly hope you never get into a situation where you have to use yours.Ditto.
But I hope your "paranoia" forces you to keep a spare tire in your car as well...
Aramike
02-24-09, 09:09 AM
That's true, but remember: the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense....Yes it does in that it doesn't say it, and when the founding fathers were asked about this, they said that was a god given right.
-SUmm? Huh? Where?
Saying that the Constitution "says" something that it does not is how we got Roe vs. Wade. You'd do best to steer clear of the idea.
[quote]I do not doubt the founding fathers intention. I just say that the road to hell is plastered with good intentions, intentions that most of the time work out differently then planned. And how has it worked out differently then planned?
There are a LOT of factors that contribute to the crime rate in the US that aren't gun-related. I noticed you posted homicide rates - check out the percentages of which can be attributed to gun crime.And about protection your family and the preperation for self defense, you have to excuse me, but what else is this but paranoia?
I'm not sure you know the definition of paranoia, so I've linked it for you: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paranoia
There's nothing "irrational" or "intense" about any fear I have of others or for my family. I just pragmatically choose to be prepared should the worst happen. That's not paranoid. That's realism.
It's not paranoia to keep some candles and batteries around in case of a power outtage. It's preparedness.
The fact is that *I* choose to be prepared for that perhaps remote, but potential occurence. You obviously don't.
Thanks for this little correction. Though I am not sure an irrational fear would have been better then actual reason for real concern. And great you prepared yourself, if the danger of getting a victim of a murder case is as high as a power outtage over there, then I do not wonder this preperation is required. You are, however, aware this works against your argument that crime in the US is not higher or more dangerous in the rest of the western world, yes?
The basis for such preprations is the fear of something happening to them.Umm, no ... you're merely conceptualizing it that way.
The basis of such preparations is the acceptance of the possibility that they may happen.
If the acceptance of the possibility were the basis for every preperation I do, then I'd not be doing anything else but getting prepared. For what? Everything. That is not the case, however, because the chances of something happening in most cases goes towards nil. If, however, the percieved threat level in the case of homicide in the US is as high as making such preperations nessecary...well, then I think that speaks for itself.
The question if I am prepared is redundant, as I do not share this fear....and yet, you do share in the possibility. Too bad you choose to turn a blind eye to it in order to support your ideology.
Do not confuse ideology with common sense. I may be guilty of idealism, but I do dare to say that defending tools to kill ppl has more to do with ideology then trying to find ways to live without them. The pot calling the kettle black doesn't make an argument any better.
You could also ask me if I prepared myself for a meteor hit or a volcano eruption.Well, if you lived by an active volcano, it wouldn't be paranoia to be prepared for the event. It would be practical.
See above. So you basicly live by the volcano. I don't.
Nobody ever threatened my family nor anybody else's family I know in a way a gun would have made any difference. This does not mean it won't happen. So again, we're back to the fact that I choose to be prepared for the possibility, and you do not.
We are going in circles. You are right, it may happen. But as I said before, over here I do not feel a threat that makes such preperation nessecary. And I will lean myself out of the window in saying that most europeans will share this stance, exceptions proving the rule. In the US it is vice versa. That tells a lot about the state of a society.
And I sincerly hope you never get into a situation where you have to use yours.Ditto.
But I hope your "paranoia" forces you to keep a spare tire in your car as well...
Oh I do. But then again, a flat tire has a pretty high chance to occur. I'd say thank you for taking your time to share all these infos, but I do not think reinforcing my views about the dangers of becoming a homicide victim in the US justifies such a notion.
Last but not least, for the protocoll. I like weapons. I have a great fascination for them. I'd not play games involving all kind of weapons if that was not the case. Actually, were the world composed of mature, intelligent ppl knowing what they do and in control of their lives, I'd be "for" gun ownership for the very same reasons the founding fathers advocated them. Unluckily mature folks are hard to find, gung hos or simple irresponsebility beeing more the norm then not. There are folks, not criminals, I'd shiver at the thought of giving them a gun. And I rather say no to owning one myself, despite actually wanting one, then giving each and any person the ability to kill as easy as with the pull of a trigger. Sorry to say that, but for this I consider humanity in general too stupid, as it is proven again and again and again all over the world.
Yeah, jealousy and hate of the US for their freedom and independance *nods*
sure, that must be it, heared it so often, must be the case.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
subman1, we(or well, most europeans) dont need assault rifles to feel safe...unlike you
Considering your blubbering fools didn't answer the question, the accusation still stands! :D
-S
answer me this, why would i be jealous ? i think Denmark is a perfectly fine place to live and i'd take Denmark over America any day
Yeah, jealousy and hate of the US for their freedom and independance *nods*
sure, that must be it, heared it so often, must be the case.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
subman1, we(or well, most europeans) dont need assault rifles to feel safe...unlike you
Considering your blubbering fools didn't answer the question, the accusation still stands! :D
-S
You are a religious terrorist. Now you better answer to this, because if you don't it must be true.
Oh Lord, please throw brains from heaven. :nope:
Sorry Mort, only just saw this. Couldn't let this little gem of a brain fart slip.
answer me this, why would i be jealous ? i think Denmark is a perfectly fine place to live and i'd take Denmark over America any day
Denmark is indeed a perfectly fine place to live but let me ask you something. The USA has not been invaded by a foreign power since 1812, when was the last time that happened to Denmark?
To both you an Bewolf:
To many of us Americans present day Europe is like a snow cap on a slumbering volcano. The skiing is great, until the volcano awakes. Now I do hope that never happens but you'll have to pardon us gun toting Americans if we take a more pragmatic view of our personal liberties.
For all our faults, and they are many, we must be doing something right to have kept our independence for so long. I firmly believe that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those things.
answer me this, why would i be jealous ? i think Denmark is a perfectly fine place to live and i'd take Denmark over America any day
Denmark is indeed a perfectly fine place to live but let me ask you something. The USA has not been invaded by a foreign power since 1812, when was the last time that happened to Denmark?
To both you an Bewolf:
To many of us Americans present day Europe is like a snow cap on a slumbering volcano. The skiing is great, until the volcano awakes. Now I do hope that never happens but you'll have to pardon us gun toting Americans if we take a more pragmatic view of our personal liberties.
For all our faults, and they are many, we must be doing something right to have kept our independence for so long. I firmly believe that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those things. last time we were invaded ? april 9th 1940
now may i ask you, how were we going to fight off the "hordes" of the wehrmacht with the size of army we had back then ? the germans probably had more soldiers than the entire of our population at the time, so we surrendered to avoid total annihilation...anything else would have been stupid
Denmark is a very small country and even if our citizens were allowed to own weapons such as AR-15's we wouldnt last long if we where invaded
last time we were invaded ? april 9th 1940
now may i ask you, how were we going to fight off the "hordes" of the wehrmacht with the size of army we had back then ? the germans probably had more soldiers than the entire of our population at the time, so we surrendered to avoid total annihilation...anything else would have been stupid
Denmark is a very small country and even if our citizens were allowed to own weapons such as AR-15's we wouldnt last long if we where invaded
But you did fight the hordes. As I recall Denmark had a very active resistance movement. And you're right to consider size too. The US is nearly as large as the entire continent of Europe. I would postulate that an armed population in such a huge area would be significantly more difficult to subjugate than an average sized European country.
last time we were invaded ? april 9th 1940
now may i ask you, how were we going to fight off the "hordes" of the wehrmacht with the size of army we had back then ? the germans probably had more soldiers than the entire of our population at the time, so we surrendered to avoid total annihilation...anything else would have been stupid
Denmark is a very small country and even if our citizens were allowed to own weapons such as AR-15's we wouldnt last long if we where invaded
But you did fight the hordes. As I recall Denmark had a very active resistance movement. And you're right to consider size too. The US is nearly as large as the entire continent of Europe. I would postulate that an armed population in such a huge area would be significantly more difficult to subjugate than an average sized European country.
when i said fight the hordes i was talking about when they attacked denmark, not after it was captured
the most resistance we put up were 16 soldiers who hadnt been informed and as a result got blown up. and about the whole gun thing, im not really that much against guns
i just dont like the idea of my neighbour having an AR-15, AK or whatever
i dont mind people having a pistol or two (i know quite a few people who have 9mm's and 45's) or a hunting rifle as long as they activly hunt, but as said above i dont see the need for assault weapons
answer me this, why would i be jealous ? i think Denmark is a perfectly fine place to live and i'd take Denmark over America any day
Denmark is indeed a perfectly fine place to live but let me ask you something. The USA has not been invaded by a foreign power since 1812, when was the last time that happened to Denmark?
To both you an Bewolf:
To many of us Americans present day Europe is like a snow cap on a slumbering volcano. The skiing is great, until the volcano awakes. Now I do hope that never happens but you'll have to pardon us gun toting Americans if we take a more pragmatic view of our personal liberties.
For all our faults, and they are many, we must be doing something right to have kept our independence for so long. I firmly believe that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those things.
Point taken, though I am more then curious as to why you consider Europe beeing a sleeping volcano.
But about guns beeing responsible for maintaining your freedom...that didn't work out so well for the confederation in the civil war, the only instance I can imagine where the right to bear arms may have played a role.
Then there is the cliché of the harcore redneck taking up arms against the evil government creating their farmland mini states...never heared about anything coming out of this either.
Last but not least, to repeat this again, I haven't seen any armed resistance when the US government actually did cut civil rights in the US after 911.
Al in all I consider the US constitution one of the great documents in history, nevertheless mainly within the context of the time and global/european situation of it's creation. In the computer and information age a BLOG is for sure more effective of keeping civil rights and liberties and making huge parts of the population aware of problematic developments then a gun in a locker could ever achieve.
Oh, and about guns beeing required to keep freedom and independance...look at the british. They appear to manage quite well for quite a bit longer then the US.
A good exaple where a population with guns actually works is Switzerland. But then again they don't have a cowboy mentality, but lots of discipline. In such an environment it works out. The guns stay in the locker until absolutely required.
Aramike
02-24-09, 01:27 PM
Thanks for this little correction. Though I am not sure an irrational fear would have been better then actual reason for real concern. And great you prepared yourself, if the danger of getting a victim of a murder case is as high as a power outtage over there, then I do not wonder this preperation is required. In my opinion, one shouldn't bet their family's well-being on percentages. Winning a major lottery jackpot has even a lower percentage than being a victim of a violent crime (and the percentages of that go way up when you add violent crime rates to murder rates), yet people play the lottery all the time.
And win.
But there are other rational reasons to own a gun. What if one lives out in the country and has a problem with bears/wolves/etc? What if one is a farmer and his lifestock is getting preyed upon? What if one owns property in an area with little police coverage?
There's a reason most every cop in the US carries a firearm, by the way.You are, however, aware this works against your argument that crime in the US is not higher or more dangerous in the rest of the western world, yes? Umm, no, I never made that argument.
But the US crime rate can hardly be attributed to guns, by the way. Our culture is mixed in a way that many Europeans don't completely grasp. A side-effect of that is crime. Besides, it makes no sense to blame a tool of crime for the crime itself.
Gun crime is a small percentage of overall violent crime in the United States. There are people who commit violent acts with knives, blunt objects, and even just their hands. And, some of these criminals are quite strong - and they tend to prey upon the weak. A gun can even things out a bit.If the acceptance of the possibility were the basis for every preperation I do, then I'd not be doing anything else but getting prepared. For what? Everything. That is not the case, however, because the chances of something happening in most cases goes towards nil. If, however, the percieved threat level in the case of homicide in the US is as high as making such preperations nessecary...well, then I think that speaks for itself. I still don't get why you're grasping at this straw.
Look, one doesn't need to prepare for every small thing that happens, you're right. However, I don't simply look at the percentages of something bad happening - I also look at the RESULT of what would happen if I am NOT prepared.
You're obviously prepared to accept the consequences of not being prepared for a violent home invasion. I'm not.
Do you really believe that entities such as home security companies and items like locks on doors exist because - hey, why not?
So, I go a step further. If a lock and alarm doesn't deter someone, I'll be able to handle that person. Such a person would probably have some pretty violent designs to continue on.
I make my family's safety a priority - not an assumption. Hopefully I'll never need any of those tools, and I probably won't. But if I do, well, I've got them.
Do you?
That's right - you're okay with gambling your family's safety on chance. That's your choice. You'll probably be fine. But if you roll snakeeyes, well, that's just too bad for you I guess.
I won't accept that. Doesn't make me fearful. Doesn't make me some kind of nut. It just means I understand the world outside my doors and want to control what I can control. Do not confuse ideology with common sense. I may be guilty of idealism, but I do dare to say that defending tools to kill ppl has more to do with ideology then trying to find ways to live without them. The pot calling the kettle black doesn't make an argument any better. Umm, wow, you're way off.
I said that you're turning a blind eye to certain realities in order to support your ideology. I didn't say that you have an ideology and I don't. I was making a very clear point.
Defending "tools that kill people" is based upon a pragmatic, realistic view of the world. There's no pot calling the kettle black here. I'm saying you're looking at the world throw a lense to support your ideology, and at the same time I'm making the assertion that I'm looking at the world for what it actually is to support mine.
So, take it easy dude...See above. So you basicly live by the volcano. I don't. Where have I even suggested that all of our situations are the same? However, I would say the more appropriate analogy is that I live by a more active volcano, which I don't dispute. Hell, we could do this forever ... we could break it down by neighborhoods or even city blocks if you want.
It's nice to have a choice.We are going in circles. You are right, it may happen. But as I said before, over here I do not feel a threat that makes such preperation nessecary. And I will lean myself out of the window in saying that most europeans will share this stance, exceptions proving the rule. In the US it is vice versa. That tells a lot about the state of a society. First of all, either you're glibbly faking that you have the impression that there's gunbattles throughout American streets or you really are ignorant as to the state of our society. As someone who lives here, let me tell you - it's pretty peaceful over here. Yes, we have higher violent crime rates but one must remember that a lot of that is localized. More to the point, however, don't confuse HIGHER crime rates with HIGH crime rates.
And, like I said, I don't "feel" a threat. However, I DO "feel" the need to be prepared to defend my family should something arise. It's something that's cheap and easy to prepare for so, why not? Becoming a victim due to not taking a simple step to avert the situation seems silly to me.
Okay, I get it - you think guns are bad. That's your ideology regarding this discussion. That's not going to stop a criminal from using a gun. All you're advocating is stopping a law-abiding (and therefore not-dangerous) citizen from doing so. That makes no sense to me.Last but not least, for the protocoll. I like weapons. I have a great fascination for them. I'd not play games involving all kind of weapons if that was not the case. Actually, were the world composed of mature, intelligent ppl knowing what they do and in control of their lives, I'd be "for" gun ownership for the very same reasons the founding fathers advocated them. Unluckily mature folks are hard to find, gung hos or simple irresponsebility beeing more the norm then not. There are folks, not criminals, I'd shiver at the thought of giving them a gun. And I rather say no to owning one myself, despite actually wanting one, then giving each and any person the ability to kill as easy as with the pull of a trigger. Sorry to say that, but for this I consider humanity in general too stupid, as it is proven again and again and again all over the world.Well, I think the US proves you wrong. Almost anyone can own a gun, and there's no epidemic of "dumb" people shooting others up, which is specifically what say you're afraid of.
Any gun problem we have is due to criminals ... your sacrifice wouldn't be taking guns out of their hands.
Aramike
02-24-09, 01:30 PM
Oh, I *HAVE* to respond to this one point:Last but not least, to repeat this again, I haven't seen any armed resistance when the US government actually did cut civil rights in the US after 911. This is a very common fallacy perpetuated by the left.
I haven't lost any civil rights. August, have you?
Life for Americans is by-and-large exactly the same post 9/11 as it is pre 9/11. We have no less rights now than we did before.
Well, I see no point in discussing this further. You obviously have a strong feel of beeing rightous in this, and so do I. We have to call it quits and agree to disagree, as both our argumentation obviously shows a lack of understanding for the other side.
Thank your for taking the time and energy to type and bring over your points in a civil manner.
i just dont like the idea of my neighbour having an AR-15, AK or whatever
Well from what I know of your laws (very little) your neighbor probably doesn't have one, unless of course he's a criminal of some sort and that's the whole thing about gun control laws. They only affect those law abiding enough to heed them.
To those planning murder or terrorism however they not have any effect whatsoever, except of course to make it more likely that their victims will be unarmed. After all to someone contemplating such a heinous crime what would they care about adding a gun charge?
Point taken, though I am more then curious as to why you consider Europe beeing a sleeping volcano.
The last 2,000 years of European history perhaps? After all what is 50 years of peace compared to a millennium of near constant warfare?
Last but not least, to repeat this again, I haven't seen any armed resistance when the US government actually did cut civil rights in the US after 911.
What rights have I lost exactly? I am not aware of any. I can still go where I want and talk to whom I want. I know that there are some who claim it has reduced our rights but it's always explained in the most esoteric of terms.
In the computer and information age a BLOG is for sure more effective of keeping civil rights and liberties and making huge parts of the population aware of problematic developments then a gun in a locker could ever achieve.
I know that blogging is currently very popular, but what evil has it actually prevented? Did it keep the Chinese from cracking down on the Tibetans? Has it prevented this Patriot act you seem to dislike so? Has it reduced violence in the middle east? Really, what has blogging actually accomplished other than venting impotent rage?
Oh, and about guns beeing required to keep freedom and independance...look at the british. They appear to manage quite well for quite a bit longer then the US.
That's fine, except when Germany threatened to invade they pleaded for guns from who?, yep, us gun toting cowboy Americans. That tommy gun that Churchill was pictured with was donated by an American citizen to our British cousins.
A good exaple where a population with guns actually works is Switzerland. But then again they don't have a cowboy mentality, but lots of discipline. In such an environment it works out. The guns stay in the locker until absolutely required.
My guns have stayed in the locker except when absolutely required. In the quarter century I have owned my AR-15 not once has it been used in a crime. Why are you Europeans so insistent that I give it up?
Sailor Steve
02-24-09, 04:15 PM
The 2nd Amendment wasn't meant to protect the people from the government, it was meant to protect the country (government included) from foreign invaders. We didn't have a standing army at the time, so we needed a militia to protect the country, and that militia needed to be armed for obvious reasons.
Not even remotely true. There were no armed invaders in 1775 - you're forefathers staged a revolution against their rightful, god-given government. A standing army was one of the things they feared the most, and we didn't even have one for another eighty years. It turns out they were wrong, at least so far.
Nowadays militias are illegal. If you started a militia with an armory today, it would be legal for the government to shut you down and confiscate your guns, even with the 2nd Amendment.
And that's one of the things that is wrong with the country today. I agree we don't need private militias, and they didn't then either; but a state militia is not a bad thing.
If an American government really wanted to become a dictatorship, they would be able to do it even with the 2nd Amendment. A bunch of handguns won't stop a determined dictator with the military on their side. Red Dawn was a great movie, but so was Seven Days in May.
And that again is one of the problems, not the solution. And Red Dawn was an awful movie.
Do you really think the state restrains itself out of fear of armed violence? Regardless of gun ownership laws, the state still has the overwhelming advantage in firepower. The people can respond with armed violence, but it would just be suicide.
Better to not respond at all? Better to not stand against a dictator? The Founders knew that if they lost that war they would all hang. They stood against what they percieved as tyrrany anyway. Do you believe we should lie down and let them roll over us?
Besides, according to Weber's widely accepted definition, a state must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in order to exist. So by admitting that a use of force outside of the state's control would be somehow legitimate, a state ceases to exist as a state.
This state derives its just powers "from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it..."
They knew then what you have apparently forgotten - that any government can turn tyrannical, and for the people to be armed is the only guarantee we have that that can happen. True, with today's military it is harder, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be ready to try if necessary.
You do have a point that the ultimate power the people have is to bring down the government. But in the US Constitution that power is granted by elections, not by the 2nd Amendment.
Hitler was elected by popular vote. Not picking on my German cousins, just pointing out a fact.
The belief that private citizens armed with guns can save themselves against the might of a state intent on taking away their liberty is an egotistical delusion. I've studied plenty of dictatorships, and I don't know of a single case where private gun ownership did anything to stop an infringement on liberty. A dictatorship rises or falls based on its relation to the military, not gun toting citizens.
Then you must have missed the French Resistance. The first thing the Nazis did with every country they conquered was to start registering guns, and then cofiscating them. The biggest thorn in their side was underground groups blowing up bridges with illegal <gasp> explosives.
You advocate giving up the only possible chance to defend myself on the grounds that I'm delusional and it would be suicide to even try. I try not to get this personal when I post, but you frighten me more than any illegal militia. And I don't support them at all.
Would someone with more knowledge than I on the subject elaborate on the difference between having a state militia and our state National Guard units?
Would someone with more knowledge than I on the subject elaborate on the difference between having a state militia and our state National Guard units?
The National Guard is a federal military force raised under Congresses power to create standing armies. That's why their uniforms have "US Army" tags and not "(insert state) Militia". That's also why they can be "Federalized" at the whim of the President.
State militias on the other hand are created and commanded by the state and local governments for their specific and exclusive use.
Sailor Steve
02-24-09, 04:34 PM
The National Guard tries to tie itself in with the original militia, right down to claiming to have been born back then and using the minuteman statue as their logo.
The Governor can call them out any time he needs to, but all their weapons are supplied by the fed, and the fed can shut them down any time it wants to. We have a new Guard site going up near where I work, and right there on the gate it says 'Property Of United States Government'.
You can't have it both ways.
[edit]August, you're too quick for me, ya trigger-happy bum!
The National Guard tries to tie itself in with the original militia, right down to claiming to have been born back then and using the minuteman statue as their logo.
The Governor can call them out any time he needs to, but all their weapons are supplied by the fed, and the fed can shut them down any time it wants to. We have a new Guard site going up near where I work, and right there on the gate it says 'Property Of United States Government'.
You can't have it both ways.
[edit]August, you're too quick for me, ya trigger-happy bum!
I may be quicker but you explained it better ya old Swabbie!
UnderseaLcpl
02-24-09, 04:44 PM
I knew one of you would answer that question, so I saved my self the trouble. :salute:
Sailor Steve
02-24-09, 04:46 PM
You kids today are all so lazy!
:rotfl:
UnderseaLcpl
02-24-09, 04:47 PM
You kids today are all so lazy!
:rotfl:
I prefer to call it "efficiency". Same result, less work. :DL
Got it. Thanks for the answers fella's....
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.