The Gun Law Discussion

[Speed Daemon]

I'm thinking that we should pass laws against murder. Really put some language behind it, ya know...

Indeed. Like capital punishment. According to its proponents, we couldn't possibly have any more murder in Texas. Maybe if we torture them before we kill them, yeah...that's the ticket!

I'm sure I'll be branded a heretic (by politicians) for saying it, but it looks to me like faux "solutions" that do more for keeping the careers of politicians safe and sound are a total waste of time. I doubt that the status quo will change much until our society as a whole decides not to accept it any more. I'm not holding my breath...

Many people cite England as a shining example of how "things should be" while conveniently ignoring the centuries of bondage and class oppression (and world wars) that shaped the English society, ignoring Northern Ireland and ignoring the fact that these Draconian gun laws aren't stopping a rising tide of violent crime there either. Others like to say that the US is the only violent nation on earth, which is also fallacious. There is no solution in maintaining fantasies about utopian times and places that never existed.

I don't have a solution. I wish I did, but I don't. I do think that it does no good to keep on embracing highly flawed ideas that have not worked in the past. If there are new and untested solutions, I'd love to hear about them. And if there aren't, can we learn to accept that? Should we? I don't know.

 

[Davdi]

The gun laws in England have done nothing but make life difficult for legitimate gun owners. Guns are still easily acquired if you know the right people.

 

[ElasticNinja]

The gun laws in England have done nothing but make life difficult for legitimate gun owners. Guns are still easily acquired if you know the right people.

Easily acquired if you have a strong criminal rep. and a large sum of cash. As opposed to the US where guns are widespread and cheap. There is a reason stabbings are the assault of choice in most of Europe.

Certainly large criminal gangs have their armouries and the like, but even then these weapons are kept away from low tier criminals, the ones who would cause the most damage.

 

[andrdhillbilly]

you are correct..... it doesnt rule out who is/isnt responsible for regulating it........ but more importantly it doesnt rule the US govt in....... once again..... the constitution doesnt give me the right to bear arms....... it restricts the government from infringing on that right....... as for who is ruled out..... I point you once again to who is NOT ruled in

Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

no power of regulating guns was delegated to the United States

and to help you out a little bit...... there arent 2 halves to that sentence...... there are 4 parts (you'll notice the commas)........ and it seems you've completely left out the 2nd part because it specifically defeats your argument

Article 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Please notice the last word of the second part......its an important one... States........ in every portion of the constitution where power was delegated to the entirety of the US govt the words United States appear....... in every portion where powers were specifically deferred to the state governments the word States appears......

here in this section youll notice the constitution specifically says being necessary to the security of a free State....... NOT the United States....... the powers to regulate were not delegated to the US govt because thats exactly the reason the amendment exists.... to prevent the US govt from taking away gun rights...... and the militias were never intended for national defense... they were intended if the need arose to prevent the govt from taking away rights...... the states have the power to regulate militias and arms as they see fit...... but the United States shall not infringe

Feel free to use any other arguments you like, be they philosophical, political, traditional etc...

I basically agree with your response, and would add some points that further strengthen it:
- The few with the courage and integrity to actually study the history of this nation know that the founders understood all too well the risks of a strong central gov't, having come from countries that trampled on the rights of individual citizens and municipalities. This included areas such as religion, commerce, and self-defense, as evidenced by specific prohibition against the federal gov't 'infringing' on rights in those arenas.
- Further, knowing the context, it seems obvious that the 2nd amendment intends to clarify/reinforce such prohibitions on the assumption of federal power, recognizing that state and local military capability (organized as 'militias' at that time) was key to defense on two levels: preventing the fed from infringing upon rights intended for the states, AND protecting the entire republic from outside enemies. The latter was key to winning the Revolutionary War, something we would do well to remember.
- A federal law that infringes is unconstitutional today, regardless of how long it has been on the books/in practice. States failing to stand up and fight, or failing to recognize the infringement potential in a new federal statute at the time, does not take away their right to defend what was clearly delegated to them in the Constitution.
- In the past 50 years, Americans have become complacent, with too many looking to the federal gov't only for help. This new society, with its self-centered focus, has lost track of what it costs to give up freedom, and was helped along by a school system that stopped teaching about the hardships our ancestors faced in their countries of origin, which molded the basis for this new republic.
- Now, we vote for representatives based on who will give us what we want for free, rather than reps who will fight to ensure that we ARE free.
- Legislation has become politics, pandering for votes. Otherwise, we would actually ENFORCE (and occasionally tweak) the laws we already have and move on.

 

[Davdi]

Andrdhilbilly wrote:

Now, we vote for representatives based on who will give us what we want for free, rather than reps who will fight to ensure that we ARE free.

Very much this.
In the UK we havea coalition of an allegedly righ wing party and an allegedly centre-left party. In reality the 'Right Wing' party is to the left of centre, the 'centre-left' party is well to the left and the 'left wing' opposition are confused because the others have stolen their toys.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Andrdhilbilly wrote:

Very much this.
In the UK we havea coalition of an allegedly righ wing party and an allegedly centre-left party. In reality the 'Right Wing' party is to the left of centre, the 'centre-left' party is well to the left and the 'left wing' opposition are confused because the others have stolen their toys.

I think anyone who actually follows UK politics would be forced to scoff at your idea of the British political spectrum. The UK ultimately has two large parties - Labour and the Tories - and also the Liberal Democrats. There are also an assortment of Nationalists of course.

The Conservative party is not to the left of center. One needs only look at the global warming denying, Europe hating, bigots that make up a decent sized proportion of its back benches. How on Earth one can insinuate that the likes of Theresa May or Michael Gove or Boris Johnson are to the left of center, well I will never know. EDIT: Honourable mention to George Osbourne and William Hague. Sigh

The Liberal Democrats are a typical pro-business party who tend to follow logic and reason more than ideology, with a strong cohort of center left backbenchers. Vince Cable and the like are certainly not of the nationalise the mines mindset you seem to think they are.

Unless your news is 60 years late, it is blindingly obvious that in the last two decades, the 'left-wing opposition' has moved more and more to the right. How have you forgotten New Labour's reign so fast?

 

[Speed Daemon]

In the UK we havea coalition of an allegedly righ wing party and an allegedly centre-left party. In reality the 'Right Wing' party is to the left of centre, the 'centre-left' party is well to the left

That's interesting. Here in the US it's the exact opposite. Here every group is pretty far right of center. The Democratic Party as a whole is center to right, and the Republican Party is very far to the right. No major organization represents the true center or anything left of center.

Here in the US there's another dimension on the political compass that is rarely mentioned in public, but is playing an increasing role in government here. That second dimension is the axis that ranges between libertarian and authoritarian.

 

[ElasticNinja]

That's interesting. Here in the US it's the exact opposite. Here every group is pretty far right of center. The Democratic Party as a whole is center to right, and the Republican Party is very far to the right. No major organization represents the true center or anything left of center.

Unfortunately, the poster you quoted doesn't know what they are on about. The situation in the UK is not the exact opposite. Parties in the UK are more coalesced around the center, however it is ultimately a 2.5 party system which is unusual in Europe, its more like the US in this regard.

 

[huh]

I try to stay away from the politics threads because I usually get lambasted but... I think that Thomas Jefferson was one of the most interesting, intelligent and forward thinking persons in the history of this great country. This Pretty much sums it up for me (plus sometimes it's hard for me to zip it..


Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.

At 5, began studying under his cousin's tutor.

At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.

At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.

At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.

At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.

At 23, started his own law practice.

At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.

At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America” and retired from his law practice.

At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.

At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.

At 33, took three years to revise Virginia's legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.

At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.

At 40, served in Congress for two years.

At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.

At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.

At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.

At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.

At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.

At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.

At 61, was elected to a second term as President.

At 65, retired to Monticello.

At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.

At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.

At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams.

Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

 

[ElasticNinja]

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Hey, lets use quotes from a bigot (like most then) living in the 18th century to back up arguments today! The Puritan mindset just reeks off a lot of his ideas.

 

[huh]

Hey, lets use quotes from a bigot (like most then) living in the 18th century to back up arguments today! The Puritan mindset just reeks off a lot of his ideas.

or ...I could quote a Founding Father and the author of "The Declaration of Independence."



Oh that's right!...you're not an American

..Let them eat cake!

cheerio

 

[ElasticNinja]

or ...I could quote a Founding Father and the author of "The Declaration of Independence."

I think I'll just back up everything I say with quotes from Otto Von Bismarck in future.

No one likes Catholics anyway.

 

[copestag]

sounds as though someones still bitter about living in a 3rd world country

 

[saptech]

Yeah, how many slaves did he own??? One of the founding fathers of "all men are created equal".

 

[copestag]

if out of all the great things a person has done........ the most damaging criticism you can make of them is about something probably close to 100% of the population agreed was acceptable during the time period....... I'll take that

I heard he also thought clouds were gay and trees were representatives of the devil

 

[saptech]

That's my point, great for who? Just because it's accepted doesn't make it right. Now if you want to know about a great person and what great things he did for this country read this.

Frederick Douglass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daveveal]

I live in the UK. Pop over sometime and get a reality-check...

 

[ElasticNinja]

sounds as though someones still bitter about living in a 3rd world country

Who would that be?

I live in the UK. Pop over sometime and get a reality-check...

They don't get enough holiday time to do that.

 

[zuben el genub]

I have the feeling that sooner or later control will be coming:
3D Printable Ammo Clip Skirts New Proposed Gun Laws - Slashdot

When it gets to the point where an individual can just print a gun, licenses and registration for all purchased and prior guns will be required. I also saw an article where a police department is working on a portable scanner like the TSA uses for weapons. Those scanners could be attached to surveillance cameras and if you don't have a license or registration, could be a very substantial fine. Legitimate guns could also be chipped at some point.

I don't think law enforcement would approve of 3D printing your own gun.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I don't think law enforcement would approve of 3D printing your own gun.

They don't approve of anything that gets in the way of their monopoly on absolute power.

 

[A.Nonymous]

They don't approve of anything that gets in the way of their monopoly on absolute power.

I don't think law enforcement has a monopoly on absolute power.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I don't think law enforcement has a monopoly on absolute power.

You can believe what you want, but the fact remains that US law enforcement agencies are trained and equipped like armies, and allowed to act like gangsters. They have an "us vs. them" culture that widens the gap between them and the people who they're ostensibly supposed to serve. "To Serve and Protect" has been replaced by "we take care of our own" and zero tolerance. Of all of these, the zero tolerance part is by far the worst.

As it relates to the gun issue, the police want to be the only ones to have weapons, so that they can have absolute power, and be able to wield their absolute power with absolute impunity. The problem with this is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and rapidly degenerates into totalitarianism. And that's the exact opposite of what America is supposed to be about. Doubleplusungood.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Trained and equipped like armies? Sure. But the gangs on the street are trained and equipped like armies as well these days. Allowed to act like gangsters? No. Are there bad apples? Sure. But that's the exception and not the rule. Us vs them culture? Sadly yes. I can't really blame them for this. They routinely get crucified in the media for every little thing they do.

Two incidents come to mind that happened recently. In one case officers responded to a report of a disturbance. A mentally ill and mentally ******ed man who was off his meds charged down the stairs at them with a butchers knife in his hand. The cops killed him. The media ran the headline as "cops kill mentally ******ed man". They ignored the fact that the guy posed a threat to everyone's life at the time. In another case the cops stopped a guy on a traffic stop. They walk up to the car and find that the guy has a shotgun on the passenger's seat. So they ask the guy to step out of the car. Instead of complying the guy reaches for the shotgun. Cops shoot him several times through the door and he will now no longer walk again. Turns out the shotgun was unloaded. Media runs the story as "Cops paralyze 20 yr old who had an unloaded gun.

Heck, we had as story recently where the cops shot a guy who was robbing a store. There is video footage from the surveillance cameras where you can see the cops come into the store after seeing the guy brandishing a knife at the clerk. Rather than dropping the knife and giving up the man charges the cops and they kill him. All of this is on video tape. The media runs story after story after story and interview after interview after interview with the guys mother where she claims that the cops murdered her son in cold blood and he was a good kid. Repeatedly she stated her story that her son had surrendered and was outside the store on the ground and handcuffed when the cops shot him in the back of the head for no reason. The media continues to run this story despite freaking video evidence showing the exact opposite. They run the story of a grieving mom who wasn't even there. So, no, I don't blame them at all for the us vs them mentality. It's hard to serve and protect people who seem to hate you no matter what you do.

In the case where they shot the mentally ******ed guy with the knife the media claims they should've shot him in the leg or use a taser. (Yeah, use a taser on a guy who is trying to kill you.) In the case where they shot the guy who reached for the shotgun, the media claimed officer should've determined if the gun was loaded or not first. Not sure how you figure that out by looking at a gun. In the case where they shot the guy who was robbing the store the media basically claims the cops story is bogus and they are liars.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Perfect example today of what I mentioned - Woman Under Police Protection Stabbed To Death In Her Apartment

 

[Speed Daemon]

Trained and equipped like armies? Sure. But the gangs on the street are trained and equipped like armies as well these days.

That's not true. The fact that everyone except the intended target gets shot in the vast majority of gang shootings makes this crystal clear. Nor do they have the self-discipline of military and paramilitary personnel. When's the last time you saw a street gang wearing body armor, or with a full support network for communications, logistics etc.? Sorry but that excuse is an epic fail because there's absolutely nothing to it.

Allowed to act like gangsters? No.

Saying a single word isn't proof. Look at the history of the Chicago Police Department, and its ongoing ties to the Mafia. It's well documented and very true.

Are there bad apples? Sure. But that's the exception and not the rule.

I wish that was the case. But the fact is that the self-proclaimed "good cops" are in fact criminal conspirators with the crooked cops who they don't turn in, arrest or otherwise honor their oath of office about. Those "bad apples" wouldn't be there if the majority that allows them to operate with impunity wasn't equally crooked.

Us vs them culture? Sadly yes. I can't really blame them for this.

Yes you can. And you would be right to do so. They're supposed to keep the peace, not terrorize innocent people.

They routinely get crucified in the media for every little thing they do.

Sweeping generalizations about undefined bogeymen, insinuations and appeals to sympathy are not the things that truth is made of. But they are all logical fallacies. And fallacies aren't true. No sale.