The Fabric for the Federal Goverment vs the states continues to deteriorate

Originally Posted by August

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]

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]

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Morts

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?

[August]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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]

Originally Posted by Max2147

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.

[Enigma]

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?

[August]

Originally Posted by Enigma

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]

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!

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

I knew one of you would answer that question, so I saved my self the trouble.

[Sailor Steve]

You kids today are all so lazy!
:rotfl:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You kids today are all so lazy!
:rotfl:

I prefer to call it "efficiency". Same result, less work.

[Enigma]

Got it. Thanks for the answers fella's....