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

[Aramike]

@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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Respenus

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...

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?

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

I'm moving to Montana when I get out of the Navy - thanks for sharing SUBMAN!

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by -SWCowboy.

I'm moving to Montana when I get out of the Navy - thanks for sharing SUBMAN!

Moving there for the adherence to states' rights or the lack of background checks?

[Sailor Steve]

WOW! I've missed so much!

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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.

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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....

[August]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

...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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

WOW! I've missed so much!

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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]

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]

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]

What you "feel" does not necessarily reflect reality. People felt secure on the Titanic,... until it sank.

Great point!