I think Fuchs did say most of the important stuff anyway. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

On the matter what Chrysalis had said, as a fellow Fin, I thought to put some thoughts for others to think, too Some say that Finland is the most Americanized country (after US, course) in the world. I think the school shooting idea came from watching the news, which sadly enough, around here is mostly bad or worse news from all around world and few occasional bad local news. The idea of keeping people afraid did come from US, but maybe someone else invented it, I don't know. Back in the days people did not use that much guns but instead knives and not that much for crimes but to solve disputes. In wild west people used guns but here we used knives. I still got from my grandfather a knife that basically was the "tool of trade", a set of two knives in one scabbard. A small (about 2cm blade) and a big one (10cm blade). The smaller one was used to cut the food and scare off little kids and the big one to settle disputes between grown men.

But the idea of using guns and specifically pistols to do some killing around here is a new concept. The reason for that is the internet and computer games and of course roleplaying games in particular as there people learn to kill people and eat their pets... No wait, that was what I did read from a magazine years ago I think there are people all around the world with all kinds of problems in their upstairs that can cause such events like school shootings. Mental problems aren't restricted to any one place, even though some seem to think all Americans have them Around here they now are planning on forbidding small arms (barrel length less than 60cm) to prevent such ever happening. It's a fancy way on politics to "make things more safe" by coming up with new laws and rules that do not remove the problem: people. Could something had been done with the school shootings to prevent or to lessen the damage dealt? Definitely yes. What? On the last school shooting the police did interview the kid and was even ordered to confiscate the gun from the kid. Did they? No. They did interview the kid, but the gun wasn't confiscated. Would be interesting to find out why it wasn't, but media has moved on as the matter isn't any more media sexy and telling the truth about the cop who didn't take the gun wouldn't improve the image of the cops.

If something the Finns should learn from the Americans or almost any other country (except Sweden, there it's at least as bad) is how the police should response to threats. Some years ago the police was called to neighboring house to investigate as the report was that a drunkard who was visiting his mom and possibly had a gun and was making a scene there. In the middle of the night, 5 police cars loaded with police did arrive to the scene and few of the police then did check the house with flashlights from outside while the others were hiding behind their cars. After about half a hour siege, they did manage to breach into the building and arrest the bad guy. He had passed out long before the police ever arrived It sure was interesting to watch...

And as so many stories, books and movies have proved, a strong&strict police state is the most safest place to live. Computer is your friend.

Oh and not to derail too much, I think the rules of knockdown are ok in SR

I think that's actually just another sterotype. There are many Americans who express all kinds of criticism of the USA.

I actually am really starting to enjoy this thread because I feel like I'm learning everyone's sterotypes about the USA, which is always good for me to know when I travel overseas. My intro to the sterotypes was actually Jagged Alliance 2, but now they're a little more fleshed out in text and detail.

Yes, I would force him to play some humiliating role in The Quest 2 in return for boosting up his failing reputation and martial arts business.

Wow! You know, the reason I ever learned about the invasion of Grenada was actually because I played the old video game Damage Incorporated, which was basically a USMC-themed Marathon mod by Richard Rouse, and one of the difficulty levels was "Grenada Landing". This lead to my looking it up on Wikipedia.

Where I heard it first, was at the VP-Debate between Biden and Palin. Of course, there is critisism that Americans express within their own country, but those were the 2 people, of which one of them would doubtless be the Vize-Leader of the Nation. When I heard this "golden shiny city" the first time, I actually lol'd IRL because no other nation would have the decadence to have their potential leaders say stuff like that =) (and if they did, their leaders would just be as disillusional as the 2 VP´s tried to come across as). That´s all I'm saying, of course not Americans think the same - as you can see in this thread - but there is an overall image - and that´s all I can talk about.

It's just that many of us prefer to keep such things "in house."

If your family is having some trouble, you deal with it with your family. You don't need the neighbors to come over and tell you you're raising your kids wrong, or not pleasing your wife, or that your father/husband/whatever is old and fat. You criticize family among family (which is why so many family holiday get-togethers turn into shouting matches, you've got pent-up anger from all year pouring out over two holidays).

America might have its problems, but so does every other country on this miserable rock. You worry about fixing yours, we'll worry about fixing ours.

I thought that's what the American talk shows (like Dr. Phil) are about? If one has a problem, the right way is to keep it bottled up until it blows up... or so some think.

Maybe you should try not to assume too much about other people you don't know. I have indeed been shot before. In fact, I have the scars from three seperate bullet wounds to prove it. I still say what I say.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

Yeah, some of us are hard headed. I did a fair amount of volunteer work, especially in the late 80's through mid 90's in "bad areas" and was shot at more than once (thankfully never hit) and still kept going back. You when you think something is important enough you do keep going back, if you think it important enough that every yahoo has a gun who wants one you do support THAT even after being shot AND hit. Hard headed cussedness is a part of being successful, especially in the States, so it is no wonder we're that way about even silly assed issues.

Again, I'm not for taking away the guns from the people or disallowing them to those folks who are responsible; the kind who will use them safely and treat them safely and know one end of the damn things from the other. I most definitely AM against making them so easy to get, so completely without regulation that any yahoo around can get one on a damned whim and simply don't bother to ever learn gun safety or responsibility. For precisely the same damned reason that I also advocate the need for stricter Drivers License requirements...quite simply that there are FAR TOO MANY assholes who shouldn't be allowed to legally own or operate devices that by happenstance or design or so damned deadly that accidental deaths are easy occurrences with them when they are not treated with the proper reverence and respect.

Why is it so damning to ask that if you are going to own an item that is designed to be deadly that you be required to demonstrate that you have at least a minimal level of understanding and responsibility to be allowed ownership of said item?

THIS is the crux of things. Why are we, as Americans so utterly resistant to the idea that we be REQUIRED to be responsible and to be able to demonstrate said responsibility when in possession of devices that are designed to END LIFE!?!

The only people that such a system would keep guns out of the hands of are those who do NOT show demonstrate such responsibility. Like operating a motor vehicle, operating a firearm is deadly serious business. Why shouldn't it be treated as such?


Isshia

You and I are agreeing an awful lot on this thread. eek! for all the gun violence in the US it owuld be interesting to see how much is from legally owned weapons and how much is illegal.

The only problem with this idea is that it can then be used as a form of de facto gun control, allowing the government to set unreasonable training requirements, thereby limiting the rights of individuals to own firearms.

Scary, isn't it.

I have no problem with that! Where do I sign up for the test for rocket launchers and miniguns.

Seriously, I have no problem with requiring proof of competency, but that isn't the only thing in contention in this thread. There are those that would ban guns entirely, and those that would restrict them to just police/military, and those that would allow public ownership with heavy restrictions (similar to your stance, but there are many variations), and then there are those that would like no restrictions. And that doesn't even get into just what types of firearms are, or should be available to the public, or where the line is, or should be drawn, or even how and where any such weapon should be carried.

Clearly we do not need gun control.

We need thought control.

So, knockdown then?

What about it? There is a fair amount of information in this thread about the subject, covering both in-game and real life aspects, but if you have a specific question, feel free to ask.

Where the line should be drawn is via legislation by our elected officials and then the challenges and re-challenges upon which our form of government is based, same as with DLs or any other licensing. This is nothing new. The government is not looking to take guns away. That's impractical at best and would cause the NRA to blow more gaskets than a 48 Ford trying to break the speed of sound.

Too many NRA lobbyists like to over dramatize things and act as though ANY degree of regulation or control is the government trying to take away all possibilities of ownership and take your ability to defend yourself from your government itself away. That is BS!!! Period. We NEED licensing that makes sense. We NEED for gun owners to be required to be responsible and/or reasonable waiting periods to be in place to stop impulse buying of guns which is where far and away most guns used in crimes originate. Just like DLs, there NEEDS to be GLs that are AT LEAST as difficult to get (so, from not very to kind of sort of challenging).

We need to grow up and start acting responsible in this nation and not whine like a pack of spoiled brats whenever anyone requires responsible action to secure a right or privilege.


Isshia

As I said though, licensing (or even competency) is not the only thing in contention here. A fair number of people (seemingly mostly Europeans) in this thread are of the opinion that the public ownership of guns should be abolished/is not necessary/contributes to crime/causes cancer/insert pet peeve here.

I think that the "shining city on the hill" thing is a reference to St. Thomas Aquinas, actually, which was in turn referenced by one of the Founding Fathers regarding the new nation they were going to start. So it didn't just come from contemporary people.

Since we're all airing out our sterotypical opinions of Americans/Europeans in this thread, I figured I'd throw my two cents about Europeans in.

My sterotype of Europeans and firearms is that Europeans are fukken HARDCORE. It was the Europeans who had the idea back in World War I to create machine guns and then take turns running across no-man's land while the other side laid down heavy suppression fire, zeroed in artillery, deployed chemical weapons, and sent out zepplins to drop darts. If you read World War I memoirs there's absolutely horrendous mangling, violence, and death, but those crazy Europeans kept at it and kept at it. No amount of dismembered exploded corpses could stop them from trying to jump in each others' trenches and bayonet each other with bolt action rifles. Back in World War I the Europeans were so extreme and blase about death and mangling that when the United States entered the war we realized that the only way to jump into a European's trench when he was there with his bolt action rifle and bayonet was to bring along a shotgun.

What also immediately comes to mind is the British redcoats. Every time I think about the redcoats I get goosebumps because they were some of the most hardcore warriors ever. Their whole distinctive thing was to stand there in rows and return machine-like disciplined volley fire no matter how many of them were being killed. Each and every one of them was specalized in getting into an icy manly staring contest with the Reaper and winning. Just look at how the British redcoats essentially acted like fearless, visible terminators in their wars with the Zulus. According to Lt. Col. Grossman hand to hand combat is so terrifying that supposedly everyone surrenders before it happens, but thousands of Zulus in a gigantic suicide rush with spears and looking to enter hand to hand combat couldn't break the redcoats, who just stood there working their rifles like some industrial facility mechanistically exporting death.

Another example is the Lexington and Concord. You know the psalm that goes, "even though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil"? The redcoats exemplified that during Lexington and Concord. They walked in formation all the way to Charleston, MA while people just crawled around in concealment and picked them off willy-nilly. But they just kept walking, icy cold and disciplined the whole time. The redcoats had this ability to just walk through hell and face almost certain death without getting out of sync or ever giving up their discipline. I mean, you could literally ask them to walk overland surrounded by enemy snipers upright while wearing bright red overcoats and they'd do it in perfect step. When you think about that, how can you not get goosebumps?

That's why I don't get why Europeans today seem to be do down on firearms. Europeans have done some of the most hardcore things with firearms in the history of civilization. Their total disregard towards the possiblity of their own death and mangling as exhibited in situations like World War I and Lexington and Concord transcends anything you could say along the lines of warrior ferocity or fighting spirit of what have you. It's almost transhumanist, like they made themselves into fearless efficient robots through the power of discipline and mental training.

Or, hell, let's mention the example everyone knows, Cortez vs. the Aztecs. A bunch of Spaniards with muskets and limited supplies and no supply lines to speak of just PUNKED an entire centuries-old empire. That just boggles the mind. I mean, hand to hand is so scary according to Grossman, but we're talking isolated dudes with muskets and no supplies sticking around in a foreign tropical land to punk the hand-to-hand-centric armed forces of a mighty empire. And they weren't insane and they made it happen.

It's like you give a European a rifle and the next thing you know he's just pwned and colonized half the globe. But you talk to him in his city and he's all about not giving people rifles. It's quite an apparent contradiction.

Golly gee, I sure am glad we have those handy dandy driver's licenses to keep our roads safe... When you combine that with the mandatory insurance that most states require, the streets must be the safest place on earth...

I sure am glad we don't have any unlicensed or uninsured motorists driving around, as that would be unsafe...

Just curious, but would you also hold police officers to the same training standards you would hold the general populous to? If so, I have a feeling we might see a lot of police officers lose their jobs...

From what I've seen, the average firearm enthusiast spends MUCH more time training than the average police officer, who generally only has to qualify a few times a year. The average firearm enthusiast is likely not only a better shot, but has safer gun handling habits as well. Why is it we always hear about police officers having negligent discharges, and shooting themselves in the leg or worse? How often do you hear about the average gun owner discharging a firearm in a crowded classroom, or inadvertently leaving their firearm in a public restroom? If an average gun owner were to commit such a heinous act, they would likely end up in jail, and yet these scenarios are commonplace for the law enforcement community.

Government mandated training is not the answer. Teaching people personal responsibility is. Would you give your teenage son the keys to the family car, without any prior training on your part? Would you yourself go out and buy a brand new supersport motorcycle, with no prior riding experience? There is no current requirement for licensing and training before purchasing a vehicle, only before operating one on public roads. Similarly, there is no training requirement to purchase a firearm, but there is mandatory hunter's education in many areas, as well as training requirements in many jurisdictions before a concealed carry permit is issued.

Ultimately, it is your responsibility to act responsibly, and to teach your children the same sense of responsibility. We should never rely on the government to teach our children a sense or responsibility, morals, or manners. These are all the parents' duties, and this is what we should be focusing on instead...

This post was epic, and you should feel epic.

Anti-gun people -- and by this, I don't necessarily mean anyone in this thread, but rather the dozens or hundreds of editorials, etc, I've read this in -- keep saying they wish firearm licensing was more like driver's licensing. I wish it, too, but not for the same reasons they do. I don't think most of them really know what they're talking about.

You're able to use that license to drive any car you want in any state you want, anywhere in the country, from the tiniest little sub-compact to the biggest, meanest, SUV. You can drive your cars across state lines without worrying about some silly law like "you drove with your windows open, you're losing your license" or "you can't prove to me that you're just driving your car home from the dealership, you're losing your license," or "your family already owns a car, you're not allowed to buy another one." No politicians are pushing to increase gas taxes by 1000% in order to purposefully make it financially impossible for the average citizen to be able to regularly operate a car right now. I'm allowed to drive a car to any business I like, to the bank, to college, to public school campuses, to the hospital, and to the post office. There aren't broad, sweeping, pushes to regulate and criminalize cars based on being "assault cars," like limiting all cars to driving exactly the speed limit (because only police should be able to drive faster), or banning the sale of certain cars because of purely cosmetic concerns like having fins or luggage racks on top. An American can own more than one car without it being called an arsenal, him being labeled a right-wing car nut, and the cars someone owns hardly ever come up in a news report when a car owner commits another crime. Wal Mart doesn't ask you to show your driver's license to buy gasoline. No one gives you a funny look when you pull out your driver's license as a proof of ID (everyone does a double take if you try the same with a CCW permit). There aren't shill organizations funded by the anti-driving-society-of-America, a political lobbying group, that claim to be pro-driving but then clarify that they're really only pro-driving-to-work and not pro-driving-anywhere-else.

Off the top of my head, in a matter of minutes, I can rattle off a list of reasons owning (and driving) a car is easier and more socially acceptable than owning (and operating) a firearm...and yet it's the guns that we supposedly have a Constitutionally recognized, Creator-of-your-choice-granted, right to own, without infringement, and not the cars. And, on top of that, cars kill more people than guns every year, by several orders of magnitude...weird, huh?

So, yeah. Sign me up. Let's do it.

Good point, Critias.

I am still waiting for Concealed Carry Permits to be recognized nationwide under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Then again, I also like Vermont and Alaska's approach on the issue...

Wow.

I dropped out about a hundred posts ago when the argument was about whether people would stay standing or not if hit by a bullet. I decided to see what on Earth people were still arguing about. How things have changed. Now we're into that old gun control thing again.

I've been a gun control advocate most of my life, despite (because of?) a fair amount of time spent with the Canadian military. A fundamental issue I have not been able to dispel is the thought that if I am walking down the street and some guy freaks out, he could shoot me if he had a gun, or punch me if he didn't. Gun control would seem to be the answer. One can argue that if I had a gun too, I could defend myself, but let's face it, Dumpshockers, which character wins the gunfight, the one who shoots first, or the one who shoots second?

Two thoughts of mine weaken the notion that gun control is necessary. First, if the guy didn't have a gun, he could have a knife, or a baseball bat, or.... you get the picture. How far are we to go to protect people from the abuse of tools by others? Now, there are several posts here that compare gun possession with car possession, and talk about the respective rules that apply. I think it is silly to compare the two. Cars have many, many purposes that serve society and the individual. We trade the dangers of cars for the many clear benefits. Weapons kill. Period. Nevertheless, restricting guns has not kept people here in Canada from knifing each other or being creative about murder. Perhaps in the U.S. gun crimes are more prevalent because they are superior to other weapons and easily accessible, but killers would find some other way if they had to.

Second, the fear for many is predicated on the assumption that if one has access to something or some power, he will use it or be affected by it. There certainly are historical precedents and mythological/literary examples to support the idea that power corrupts, and a weapon in your hand is power. But if easy availability of corrupting material were a source of danger, then how come Canadians aren't way more likely to commit sex crimes than Americans? I am continually amazed at how much censorship there is on American TV, compared to Canadian TV, both in language and graphic sexual content. And your strippers.... phhhht.

So I am not as hard core supportive of gun control as I used to be. Still... many more people die by gunshot in the U.S. every year than were killed in the Twin Towers on 9/11. How come you guys don't see that? Doesn't that make you think? If you are so fired up by outsiders killing 3000 of you, why do you defend the killing of thousands of you ...every year? I just don't get it.

****

Oh, and that bit a few posts ago about Europeans being hardcore? Phhht and phhht again. Take just the 1st World War stuff... Canadians were THE hardass troops of the Western Front. The term 'storm trooper' was coined by the Germans to describe the Canadians. When others (Europeans) ran from weapons of mass destruction... the Canadians held the line. When others (Europeans) failed to take objectives, the Canadians were sent in to do it. When the Americans finally decided to join the party, they rang the death knell of the German war effort, but in the ensuing 100 days till the end of the war the far fewer Canadians held a longer front, faced more German divisions and fought more battles. Nobody was tougher or more determined in the face of the most horrible conditions. Nobody.

Yet... what is the image of Canadians in most other people's minds (us too)? Polite, gentle folks up there in the cold. People who want to talk rather than fight. Small and irrelevant. In the 2nd World War, roughly 10% of the entire population of Canada was in uniform and fighting. That's commitment. Name one other nation whose soil was not in contention that matched that. There are many more examples, but my point is not that we Canadians are shit hot. It's that a people being willing to go to the wall when it matters does not mean that they are intrinsically violent. And people who are capable of prolonged and profound violence have something meaningful to say about the power to kill, and deserve to be heard without being dismissed. Even Europeans.

Peter

Would it make you feel any safer if I told you that I was living in Toronto (actually Hamilton, but Toronto is more identifiable for the purposes of this discussion) at the time that I was shot?

You probably lived around the corner from my place in Hamilton, where I lived before I moved to Toronto.

Hookers congregated two blocks from my place. The crack houses were just a bit farther away. I went two weeks walking my dogs during which every dog we met wanted to kill us. The worst ones were the dogs chained to the skinheads from the crackhouses. One way, five lane Main Street was one block away, and three blocks along it was where the bicyclist was hit three times, first on his bike, and twice while trying to scramble off the street. Less than a kilometer away was the pizza joint blown up by the mob.

Yeah, there were murders in Hamilton. Every one was reported on the front page of the paper. Every one.

Peter

P.S. Sorry you got shot. Hope you're OK now.

Who's defending the killing? I'm all for the swift and merciless prosecution of murderers. I'm not all for blaming the tool they happened to use when they chose to go murder someone, and punishing the millions of law-abiding owners of such tools by taking their tools away...especially when the right to bear that tool, uninfringed, is the very second thing the men who founded this nation wrote down.

What no one outside America -- and all too many Americans -- don't realize, or at least don't remember, is exactly what a right is. Our Bill of Rights isn't a list of shit you're allowed to do because the government lets me. It's a list of things the government isn't allowed to do, because I won't let it. There's a fundamental disconnect between the way some governments work, and I think it's what causes most of the friction in threads like this. It's not about what guns I need, it's not about how many guns I need, it's not about what type of gun I need...there's no justification involved, I don't have to explain any of that to anyone. It's about a Creator-granted right that the government has, in writing, been told it cannot to fuck with. And yet it gets chipped away at, and chipped away at, and chipped away at.

The fact that no such right is recognized by some other governments -- that you're told, over and over again, that the police will protect you -- is unfortunate...but it by no means tells me I should cheerfully hand over the same right and responsibility.

Creator-granted right? Boy, that's been used to justify a lot down through the centuries. I think I missed something. Exactly which Founding Father(s) spoke to God?

Peter

In an average year, there are more people beaten to death without the use of weapons in the US than their are people murdered by all means in Canada.

I only mentioned it to refure a claim directed to me personally, and also to debunk an incorrect but common generalization (and even then I was hesitant to do so), and not as a cry for sympathy. Otherwise, it was a fair while ago, and is no big deal. Shit happens! I've been in a couple of automobile accidents as well (I had an active youth, and didn't choose my nickname lightly ), but that doesn't deter me from driving or traveling in them, and I don't necessarily agree with mandatory seat-belt or helmet laws (for adults).



What's your point? Every murder in any equivalently-sized American city is front page news for their paper as well.

And while that may be true for murders, not every shooting is necessarily reported in The Spectator.



I was living near Wentworth and Main (right near the Tim Horton's ), but it happened behind Jackson Square.

I'm pretty sure that the majority of people killed each year due to gunfire are criminals who are shot by police officers, or are deaths caused by gang violence. Also bear in mind that if these criminals or gang members are under the age of 20, they are also considered "children killed by gun violence". Interesting way to pad the statistics, is it not?

Debunk the Brady Campaign

I haven't read it personally, but I heard that the novel Freakonomics has a good idea when it comes to gang violence. Instead of trying to keep firearms out of the hands of gang members and drug dealers, we should instead be arming and training them in the proper use of firearms! This would have a two-fold result. It would allow them to kill each other off more quickly, thereby reducing the overall crime rate, and would also help eliminate the possibility of innocent victims being shot during drive-by shootings. (I can't attribute this directly to the novel, as I heard it second-hand, and it may have just been a personal opinion. If anyone has read Freakonomics, please feel free to shed some light on the subject.)

If you really want to help reduce crime, here's another theory from Freakonomics:

Freakonomics

That should stir the pot a little...

I went to bed after my last post, but this thought came to mind and I couldn't let it go.

I admire the adherence of Americans to the sentiments and intent of their Constitution. And the document itself. Many places on Earth could do much better if they had a similar document to guide them. But, how do you know the authors of the document were completely right? They were men, mere mortals. They could have made a mistake or two. The very existence of Amendments to the Constitution show that later inspection and reflection found parts that needed change or expansion.

Why is it wrong to challenge the part about bearing weapons? What makes it sacred and inerrant? Is it not possible that in the last two centuries and a bit, humanity has matured a little, and doesn't agree anymore with that particular sentiment?

OK, I'm really going to bed now.

Peter

So you don't think every living creature has the innate right to try and defend it's life by the most efficient means possible? When threatened by any external force, any living creature on the planet's supposed to just say "okay, you got me!" and roll over to quietly die?

Humans are just animals. Weapons are just tools, stand-ins for the claws and fangs we've blunted through millenia of disuse.

To me, there are basic ideals that are bigger than written laws and elected officials. The right of a human being to fight -- by whatever means they can -- to protect themself or their family is a given. It simply is. It's got nothing to do with some politicial saying it's okay to do, and nothing to do with legislation or guilt after the fact. When threatened with violence by any outside body, you do your utmost to deny it victory and destroy it. There's nothing more basic and natural than that in all the world.

It just so happens that humanity's been lucky enough to have had folks like Samuel Colt, Gaston Glock and John Moses Browning born, who then gave all humanity fantastically efficient ways to defend themselves, regardless of height or weight or physical ability. A 90 pound woman can end the threat of a three hundred pound rapist by applying a few pounds of force to a trigger. By virtue of being an innocent threatened by a predator, she has every right to do so.


Because no one's arguing humanity as matured enough that we shouldn't have the right to worship as we choose, too. Or speak freely without fear. Or cast a vote to determine who will lead our nation. Or be represented to our government. Or to not have our homes invaded by the police without reason, our persons searched without probable cause, our privacy violated.

The hypocrisy in agreeing with a few ammendments, and denying the validity of others, is why I detest such organizations as the ACLU (who, far more often than not, stay far away from gun rights arguments -- you won't even see it mentioned on their list of issues on their front page).

You respect all of them, or you respect none of them. They are the foundation upon which the country was built. When in doubt, the American way is to err on the side of personal freedom (tempered, by personal responsibility). There are plenty of other countries people can move to if they'd prefer it otherwise.

It's in the English Bill of Rights (1689), actually. The idea that possessing weapons for the defense of oneself and one's community was a fundamental human right was not controversial at the time and most major British political theorists supported it. The US Bill of Rights did not create or grant any rights but merely enshrined those rights which were already held to be the most fundamental by pre-existing law. Recently being British colonies, the law of the many States, both codified and common, was derived almost entirely from English law.
The key difference between the two Bills of Rights lays with the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty. There is no law in Great Britain that cannot be changed by Act of Parliament.

Yes, certain revisions need to be made to certain parts of the constitution. Like the 1st amendment. I'll all in favor of licensing reporters and news media. And waiting periods. Dishonest journalism has resulted in many thousands of deaths, so if it "saves one child" I'm sure it will be worth it.

First we need to ensure that journalists are honest and sane, so we'll require that they submit fingerprints to the FBI and also sign releases for the government to acquire their medical and mental health records. With those and their $500 check their government issued license should show up in 6-8 months. This will be renewed every two years , as you never know when they might crack or get arrested and not notify the government. You can apply 90 days before you license expires, with the process typically taking only a minimal 4-5 months for renewal.

Then we need to ensure that they don't publish any untrue stories. So there will be a mandatory waiting period of two weeks in which the government can check the facts of every story before it can be published. Though if the government clears the story they can publish faster, but if they have any concerns it will be the responsibility of the journalist to resolve them before publishing it.

Naturally the license of any journalist or media organizations will be suspended in any case of a libel case, as we can't let people of questioned moral character practice journalism.

Unlicensed or improper practice of journalism will, of course, be a felony, with a 5 year sentence and/or 1 million dollar fine when convicted.

Another all or nothing generalist aye?

Hey, come on man, this is a no brainer. DLs do not make things SAFE they make them SAFER. The same would be true of decent and intelligent gun licensing laws.

And as for cops, I've known more than a few in my time and almost all of them WERE firearms enthusiasts. Surprise surprise. Did you think about any of this before posting?

Who the hell teaches personal responsibility to the supposed adults? And as for that, how many parents actually teach their children much of anything about responsibility? You must be living on a completely different planet than the rest of us, because if it were ONLY left up to the parents some, hell allot, of them would have kids would would be roaring down the streets at 3am liquered up, stoned, firing at each other with dads Python while they played chicken with mom's Chevy.


Isshia

So Fortune and Cantakerous, when you got shot, did you get knocked down?

Nope. I didn't even really feel the first one, but the others stung like motherfuckers though, and sure as hell made me rethink my desire to stand. I think the Knockdown rules reflect this type of thing adequately.

*lol* I didn't get shot, I caught shrapnel from one of our own mortar rounds making a big piece of concrete into many little pieces. And I couldn't tell you whether it would have knocked me down or not because I was already air borne, diving for cover, when it hit me. Now I've ALMOST been shot on four occasions, once earlier that same day (and THAT was the closest call and the only one that happened as a Marine)...but none of those knocked me down either.

They all sure as hell sent me airborne though. I dove quicker than a duck every time I had the (even vague) hint that a piece of high speed lead wanted the right of way.

Actually, I have been ricochet hit by a pistol round before. That wasn't actually being shot, although it did knock me sailing...more from shock than from anything else. (Edit: All I got out of it was a really bad bruise and a great deal of lost dignity.)

Isshia

This is important, and, again, why a lot of folks outside the USA don't understand the mindset.

The government of the United States of America was created and set up by a group of folks that inherently distrusted government.

In the US, the government is not there to be the authority over the citizenry. It is there to attend to the needs of the citizens.

It is to be the servant, not the master.

Whether we've maintained that ideal over the years is a separate subject for debate, but those are the core concepts.


-karma

Personally, I blame media hype. I mean, to put it in perspective, about 30,000 people die a year from firearm related causes, with over half of those suicides. Plus, another 70-80,000 injured. Looking around the internet, in comparison we have about 43,000 automotive deaths and close to 3 million injuries a year. Or, say, tobacco we have about 440,000 deaths a year, and no reliable numbers that I've been able to find on injuries.

#1: Completely incorrect. All a DL does is ensure that under optimum conditions you know enough about driving and basic traffic safety to hopefully not kill yourself or anyone else. Anything non-optimal happens and you're outside of the scope of this qualification. Safety is firmly in the hands of the driver, not of the licensing process or bureaucracy. Also, driving is a privilege but not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

#2: So of the limited number of cops you know, a few that you recall have been gun guys? Well, hell...I guess that means that most cops are gun people, right?
The correct answer to this question is: "No", btw. The majority of LEOs in any capacity outside of special units only use their weapons to qualify on an anual or semi-annual basis on an insanely easy testing battery, and most barely do that. The idea that cops have more training than a basic "The round hole is pointed towards the suspect" and basic firearms safety (that they regularly epically fail as evidenced by the large number of per-unit holes in cop shops and their automobiles) is a common one and has even perpetuated into the criminal mindset. The truth is that most criminals (being drug-using and lazy human waste) shoot their weapons and practice one hell of a lot more than the "Highly Trained" Joe Cop and the per-shot hit ratios between them shows this as clear as day.
The vast majority of true firearms enthusiasts who practice regularly and take their training seriously can shoot rings around the vast majority of LEOs. It's been discussed, it's been demonstrated, and it's been verified.

So, who taught you YOUR core values? Did the government raise you from childbirth? Did you then hand YOUR children over to the government when they were born, to be taught the same? Have you read Brave New World, by any chance?

It seems to me that all of the supposed adults you reference were taught by their parents, who were taught by theirs before them, and so on... The fact that we now have an entire generation of youth lacking in personal responsibility, morals, and manners is a direct failing of their parents, but it is not the responsibility of the government to step in and try to teach them anything. We already have numerous laws in place to punish those who act irresponsibly. Why do you insist on punishing those that have done no wrong?

Besides, I want NOTHING to do with any so-called sense of responsibility the government has to offer... After all, this is the same government that currently rewards people for the LACK of personal responsibility.

1.) The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth . . . and kill!

2.) If you argue that way it would be better if we had some kind of "national rage against obesity" program where everyone exercises like a madman.

3.) http://www.armyelearning.ca/cfda/cfda_downloads.htm

I slept late, had a good breakfast, read a good book, and now I'm back, reading the last few posts. A great Saturday morning.

I think I have a better sense now of the thinking behind the right to bear arms issue. I understand that the intent of the writers of the Constitution was to protect people from abusive government, especially since they were crawling out from under the rulership of an empire that strongly held belief in its 'creator-granted right' to lord it over the rest of the world. I'd be pretty leery of governments under those conditions, too.

So, as I see it, the American people assure their government that if it tries to use military force to make the people do something they don't want to do, then despite the American military's demonstrated ability to blow the shit out of any force that stands in its way, the end result will be an Iraq-style guerrilla war that no government can maintain indefinitely. It's not like the people could actually defeat the military if by some unknown means the government could convince the military of a free country to fight its own people. So the threat is basically one of attrition.

Am I getting it right, here?


I don't see the right to bear arms as having the ability to protect people from other kinds of potential abuses by government. Did the writers of the Constitution foresee and develop protections against other forms of oppression? Take for example, eroding liberties and freedom of movement, blaming it on unknown enemies outside somewhere...or taking money away from the people and giving it to the elite who control the government, saying it was necessary for the well being of all... or putting into place a leader who didn't actually get elected, arguing... arguing.... OK I can't think up an excuse for that hypothetical case. How would the right to bear arms prevent these things? Are there other, similar protections to allow the people to prevent such abuses, were the government ever to try?

Peter

Peter,

There's an old phrase that I've often heard that answers your last question...



This is one of my favorite quotes, as it shows the proper order in which we should attempt to prevent or rectify the abuses you mentioned above.

I like it!

Peter

Hey! Teacher! Leave them kids alone!




Not exactly, that's just part of it.

As stated, the codified Right to Bear Arms in English Law originated with the English Bill of Rights in 1689, long before anyone in the States considered rebelling. The English Bill of Rights came out of the Glorious Revolution. At the time, King James II, a Catholic, was attempting to purge Protestant influence from government in various ways for the purpose of securing his power. This backfired horribly. One of the ways he did this was to disarm Protestants and kick all the Protestants out of his army, instead arming and recruiting Catholics.
The thing about disarming one demographic and arming that demographic's enemies is that you don't actually have to do any oppressing yourself. Traditionally, weapon control laws have been targeted at specific groups of people, rather than specific weapons. And this is why the Right (for Protestants) to Bear Arms was codified into the English Bill of Rights, so that they'd never again be at the tender mercy of Catholic arms.
One sees a similar pattern in practically every early weapon control law worldwide. They're made to disarm specific segments of the population, often the ruling party's political enemies. In the US, you see this in the gun control laws of the South after Reconstruction, which where transparently designed to disarm persons of color while allowing the KKK to operate with a degree of impunity. And later Federal guns control laws, such as the one banning the importation of low-cost firearms, were aimed specifically at Black people.

The Second Amendment reflects similar protections codified within the Constitutions of the 13 States of the time and recognized by Common Law. It addresses many concerns, not the least of which is government tyranny.

First of all, the Founders weren't idiots. They didn't perceive an elected government as a monolithic entity outside the scope of the citizenry, quite the opposite. They understood that government is made up of people who represent groups of people, and that people and groups of people when given power over other people and other groups of people, sometimes go overboard. This is why we have our extremely complex federal electoral system, to ensure a reasonable distribution of power amongst the several states, so that no one state or group of states has the ability to lord power over the others. They understood that a situation that warrants rebellion would not be the government against everybody, but some group of people using the government as a tool against others. The Second Amendment thus, first and foremost, protects against targeted disarmament based on religion, political leanings, ethnicity, or State of residence, thus preventing politically powerful groups from taking the easy route to oppressing their enemies.

One must also understand that the Founders had no intention of keeping a standing army, certainly not one as powerful as what we have today, as they saw a standing army as a major tool of oppression. Rather, it was their intent that the government be able to raise an army as necessary. Thus, the right to bear arms both assured that there would be people in the population with the skills for military service and was a protection against the possibility of one faction, whether it be political or religious in nature, gaining enough political power to raise an army and send it against their rival factions unimpeded.

The second thing it guarantees is the right to defend your person and the persons of your friends, allies, loved ones, and total strangers if you wish, from violations of your or their physical integrity. Attacks by the Mythical Stranger are rare enough to be discounted. Attacks by your enemies, on the other hand, are not. Most people are are victims of physical violence are attacked by people whom they know and it rarely comes as a total surprise. (This is, in fact, one of the big arguments against waiting periods, if an enemy is going to kill you today, a weapon won't do you any good next week).

The third thing it guarantees is a ready-made defense against foreign invasion. This was important in the beginning, when no one wanted a standing army and Britain was more than slightly interested in reasserting sovereignty over the former colonies (a fact that led to the War of 1812). Today, it is less so, but still very important as anyone who has ever watched Red Dawn can attest to.

And, of course, if also protects against blatant corruption in government, a thing that is more likely to occur at the local level than the national.






Actually, the Right to Bear Arms is great protection against blatant election fraud, as demonstrated by the Battle of Athens. The highly corrupt Sheriff's department of a small Tennessee county counts the votes, so the unpopular and highly corrupt Sheriff always gets reelected. Eventually, some ex-GIs get tired of it, get their guns, and go count the ballots themselves. Several injuries, no fatalities. It's essentially an A-Team plot with an A-Team resolution. But government corruption in small localities isn't exactly unheard of anywhere. A corrupt official can have a field day with a small town that has a small government and isn't actually important enough for the State and Federal officials to investigate corruption complaints.

Another good example lies in the conflicts between local police and the Black Panther Party for Self Defense during the 60s, which, while lopsided, would have been substantially more brutal if the Panthers lacked the means to defend themselves.

But armed insurrection is a last resort when all others have failed. The right to free movement between the States is Constitutionally protected in Article IV. It is quite impossible to restrict travel absolutely and all travel restrictions come from the power to regulate commerce. Though airline security requirements are fairly strict, for example, one can bypass them by owning a plane or simply chartering a private flight and pervasive automobile ownerships makes the interstate road trip a staple of American culture. (Jack Kerouac, dadio, yeah). Taxation is, well, taxation. That's something you'll just have to put up with till the next election. But this isn't exactly a country that is big on high taxes.

Anyway, if the government does something you don't like the first thing you do is file a lawsuit against the appropriate government official in the appropriate court to enjoin them from doing the thing that you don't like (usually against the Attorney General enjoining him from enforcing a law you believe is unconstitutional). If you're suing a state official over an action of State government, then you can choose either State or Federal court. Both court systems lead to the same place, eventually, but State courts can also rule on matters of the State Constitution, which may favor your case more than the Federal Constitution does. If you're suing a Federal official, you have no choice but to use a Federal Circuit Court.
One side will win, the other side will lose. The losing side will file an appeal. This may be you. If it isn't, you will have to respond to the appeal. The appellate court will either uphold the original ruling, strike it down entirely, or send it back for reconsideration by the lower court with additional instructions. However that goes, somebody is going to petition the Supreme Court. If you're suing a State official in State court, you'll go to the State Supreme Court. The probability of the SSC agreeing to even look at the case varies from State to State. After the State Supreme Court rules, or after the appeals court rules if you started in Federal Court, you'll appeal to the US Supreme Court. The chances of you're case being heard are somewhere between slim to none.
The USSC gets so many petitions every year that the Justices don't even have time to look at them all. Instead, they have a crack staff of low-paid yet extremely bright and dedicated interns who read every petition and forward those that seem interesting to the Justices, who then grant Ceritori only to those that they are actually interested in.

In parallel to this, one can engage in political activism on many levels in many ways, and hopefully the law in question will be rewritten before it works its way up the court system. Even if the court system fails to overturn it, one can still potentially do so via political channels. Mass demonstrations are fairly popular but don't do much. Far more effective is the so-called grass-roots movement, collecting the support of as many relevant voters as possible and having them deluge their representatives with their concerns.

Edit: or Sharpnel's quote, which was much more concise.

That's a bit different. The last major attack on US soil was Pearl Harbor. We all know how that ended. Receiving an injury while in a position of apparent invulnerability is shocking, like in the movies when the master swordsman gets a single cut on his cheek and flies into a rage. We didn't use any nukes this time. That shows some restraint.

Thanks for this exposition, hyzmarca. I will have to mull over it, there's lots to think about. One point I would like to address is your argument that gun control almost always is applied to some segment of the population to weaken it in respect to another, controlling segment. I can see examples of that around the world, certainly, but I am not convinced that it is the norm. It certainly isn't the practice in my country, Canada. If there is any segment of the population that could be seen as targeted for disadvantageous laws, it's the First Nations population. And gun control rulings are actually less lax for them, among other reasons given their cultural connection to long-standing hunting practices.

The question arises, just because a belief or ideology is misused in some cases, does that make it wrong in general? I mean, that is the same argument turned around to support the right to bear arms... just because some people misuse weapons, does that make it wrong for anyone to possess weapons?

Peter