Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 310 (669144)
07-27-2012 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ringo
07-27-2012 12:14 PM


Re: Inclusive
As far as I'm concerned, people do have an inherent right to overthrow their government, if necessary, as per Declaration of Independence. As I understand it, the Constitution simply codifies that inherent right into law.
I understand the view that the Declaration of Independence does describe such a right. But that right isn't included anywhere in the Constitution.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ringo, posted 07-27-2012 12:14 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 07-27-2012 12:27 PM NoNukes has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 310 (669145)
07-27-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by NoNukes
07-27-2012 9:33 AM


Re: Inclusive
My point was that people might have reason for concern about the "armed overthrow of the government" justification for a right to bear arms.
People, I guess, can amend the Constitution as they see fit, but until then the Second Amendment and its textual justification are the highest law of the land. There's no way to construe the Second Amendment as an amendment about owning guns for hunting and target shooting. The scope and purpose of the Amendment is completely explicit - "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state." "Well-regulated" means "orderly", as in "organized and effective."
I don't see how the Civil War changed that, since it was the side defending the US constitution and its amendments that won.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2012 9:33 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-27-2012 5:21 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2012 3:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 123 of 310 (669146)
07-27-2012 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by NoNukes
07-27-2012 12:19 PM


Re: Inclusive
But the Constitution does say that all rights not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States and people.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2012 12:19 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by NoNukes, posted 07-28-2012 5:02 AM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 310 (669158)
07-27-2012 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Briterican
07-26-2012 12:01 PM


Re: Inclusive
Briterican writes:
I have posted a link to a map of mass shootings in America... far more than you'll find in any other country. THAT is my evidence that there is something wrong with regard to guns and America.
CS writes:
But can you explain what and why is wrong?
As we know it's a hugely complicated matter. I'm not an expert but I'll pretend I am for a minute...
  • Owning arms is enshrined in the Constitution.
  • It's relatively easy to purchase guns in America.
  • Gun manufacture and distribution is big business.
  • As a result of the above, proliferation is huge.
  • In American culture, guns seem to be widely accepted, and in the extreme cases, glamourised and glorified.
  • We've all agreed that there are always going to be crazy people, and you can't always pre-empt them, or identify the threat before it is too late. Despite that, we put them smack in the middle of the above described environment and expect things to just go okay (or in the extreme case seem resigned to these killing sprees as acceptable collateral damage in exchange for the recreational use of guns).
Do you think the prevalence of guns is part of the cause of mass killings?
I hope if you read any part of this post, it will be this part, where I apologise for accusations of a "pro-violence" attitude towards any of you. It's a passionate topic, but that was out of line. Clearly none of you approves of what happened in Colorado.
Thanks. Its cool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Briterican, posted 07-26-2012 12:01 PM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-28-2012 11:16 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 125 of 310 (669159)
07-27-2012 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by onifre
07-26-2012 4:53 PM


Re: Inclusive
There simply is no need for an armed civilian population.
Rights aren't determined by need. Its the restriction of rights that's determined by need. And there's no need for an unarmed cililian population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 4:53 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2012 6:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 151 by onifre, posted 07-28-2012 6:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 126 of 310 (669168)
07-27-2012 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ScientificBob
07-26-2012 8:32 AM


An armed society is a polite society
Frankly, I am amazed that there is even discussion about this. I am amazed that so many people don't see anything wrong with being able to buy guns in a freaking supermarket
And I'm amazed that Europeans so willingly allowed their respective governments to disarm them.
Gosh, those arms sure would have come in handy during Germany's rampant occupation of Europe. And you know, a nation where only military and police have arms is, by definition, known as a Police State. I'm not comfortable with that.
Are any of you gun-proponents actually surprised by kids turning up at schools with a bunch of grenades and automatic weapons and start killing people?
No more surprised than when a killer in Norway went on a shooting rampage. Guess Norwegian laws against guns amounted to nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ScientificBob, posted 07-26-2012 8:32 AM ScientificBob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2012 8:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 133 by Modulous, posted 07-27-2012 9:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 310 (669169)
07-27-2012 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
07-27-2012 12:25 PM


Re: Inclusive
The scope and purpose of the Amendment is completely explicit - "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state." "Well-regulated" means "orderly", as in "organized and effective."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50
The writings of the Founding Fathers make it explicitly clear that their intentions were for the People to have the right to bear arms. That's incontestable to the point of it being absurd to even argue over the point.
(Damn, it's been awhile. Forgot how to embed videos)

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2012 12:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 128 of 310 (669175)
07-27-2012 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by New Cat's Eye
07-27-2012 3:35 PM


Re: Inclusive
Bang on, CS. Well said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2012 3:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 310 (669178)
07-27-2012 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by onifre
07-26-2012 4:53 PM


Re: Inclusive
It's that very ignorance and arrogance that makes you think you can do it, untill you fuck up and shoot the wrong/innocent person. There are too many cases like this, from not only civilians but by police officers.
So because it's within the realm of possibility that people get accidently shot that necessitates unilateral disarmament? Does that same prinicple apply to cars -- machines that statistically are infinitely more dangerous than guns?
There simply is no need for an armed civilian population.
Well said, Hitler. Forgive me for the blatant infraction of Godwin's Law, but I'm sure some government official told that to Germany and her citizens right before Nazi stormtroopers were hauling undesireables away.
As long as force and coercion exists, there is always a need for an armed civilian population.
And really, at the end of the day, America will never be disarmed willingly. It just won't ever be disarmed or occupied by anyone because there are too many people who value it and know it is a right afforded to them. Hell, the Framers were very clear that if anyone tries to take that right from them that the People rise up in insurrection.
So it's a moot point to even talk about. It won't happen without massive bloodshed. And should that bloodshed occur, it will be entirely the fault of the individuals or groups who waged that war against the People.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 4:53 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by onifre, posted 07-28-2012 6:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 130 of 310 (669186)
07-27-2012 8:21 PM


(Continued from other thread.)
Do they? Here's a pistol (a Luger) with what you specified before was a "semi-pistol grip":
No, that's not what I called a "semi-pistol grip". It has a pistol grip. It also appears to have a collapsible stock.
But the bill doesn't consider pistols to be "unacceptably assault-weapon-ish." That's the point - despite banning rifles with pistol grips, pistols with pistol grips are perfectly OK provided that they lack other identified "dangerous" features. But if a pistol grip is dangerous on a rifle, I fail to see by what basis a pistol grip is any less dangerous on a pistol.
You're missing the point. A pistol grip probably does make a pistol more dangerous than a pistol which didn't have one. But since all pistols have a pistol grip, the law doesn't explicitly have to say that that's one strike against them, whereas since not all rifles do, it does.
---
For the rest of your post, see DevilsAdvocate's answer, he seems to know more about it than I do.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 131 of 310 (669188)
07-27-2012 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Hyroglyphx
07-27-2012 5:16 PM


And I'm amazed that Europeans so willingly allowed their respective governments to disarm them.
Gosh, those arms sure would have come in handy during Germany's rampant occupation of Europe.
As I've pointed out before (back, I think, in the days when you were still NemesisJuggernaut) invoking Hitler makes the opposite of the point you'd actually like to make.
Europeans had lots of privately-owned guns. Germans had lots of privately-owned guns. Then one of the top worst tyrannies ever arose in Germany and took over most of Europe, and the tyrant said: "hand over your guns", and what happened? They handed over their guns. Or at best hid them somewhere. What they didn't do was form a citizens' militia, fight a victorious pitched battle against the SS, and then march on Berlin.
Now, if this story had instead ended: "... and what happened? The gun-owners shot Hitler and everyone lived happily ever after", then you would have a point. But the fact is that the privately-owned guns were rubbish as a bulwark against tyranny. What actually overthrew Hitler were publicly-funded armies, one of them downright Communist, armed with what I believe are known in military parlance as Big Fucking Tanks. If we'd sat around waiting for the people with hunting rifles to do the job, then this post would be written in German.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-27-2012 5:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Jon, posted 07-27-2012 9:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 132 of 310 (669193)
07-27-2012 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dr Adequate
07-27-2012 8:38 PM


What they didn't do was form a citizens' militia, fight a victorious pitched battle against the SS, and then march on Berlin.
That may have not happened in early 20th century Germany, but it certainly happened in the British Colonies of 1776.
An armed citizenry doesn't always rise up against an oppressive tyranny. But that's not the point. The point is that an unarmed citizenry never can.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2012 8:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2012 12:11 AM Jon has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 133 of 310 (669195)
07-27-2012 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Hyroglyphx
07-27-2012 5:16 PM


Breivik used legally obtained firearms
. And you know, a nation where only military and police have arms is, by definition, known as a Police State.
No it isn't. A police state:
quote:
...is one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
Just prohibiting weapons doesn't constitute a Police State. A nanny state, maybe.
No more surprised than when a killer in Norway went on a shooting rampage. Guess Norwegian laws against guns amounted to nothing.
Heh. That's quite funny.
You know, he tried to acquire weapons illegally, but failed. Then he tried to acquire weapons legally, and succeeded. It was Norway's permissive gun laws that allowed him to acquire the semi-automatic 9mm Glock 17 pistol and the semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14. source.
So maybe you're right - and the gun laws amounted to nothing - but I don't think you meant it quite like that.
There are about 30 guns to 100 people in Norway. It is number 11 in the world for gun ownership rate. Source.
In 2009 the gun death rate was 2.2 per 100,000. In comparison with say Romania with much tougher gun laws where it is 0.17 per 100,000.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-27-2012 5:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by foreveryoung, posted 07-28-2012 1:46 AM Modulous has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 134 of 310 (669196)
07-27-2012 9:54 PM


Murder is Murder
We need to stop setting up an artificial distinction between gun murders and other types of murders.
Murder is murder.
And that's all she wrote.

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2012 12:00 PM Jon has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 135 of 310 (669207)
07-28-2012 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Jon
07-27-2012 9:33 PM


That may have not happened in early 20th century Germany, but it certainly happened in the British Colonies of 1776.
That's as may be. My point was simply that Hitler, in particular, constitutes a counterexample to rather than an example of any claims about a connection between guns and liberty.
An armed citizenry doesn't always rise up against an oppressive tyranny. But that's not the point. The point is that an unarmed citizenry never can.
General Gandhi, leader of the famed Indian Revolutionary Army that defeated the British redcoats at the Battle of Delhi. Or something like that.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Jon, posted 07-27-2012 9:33 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Jon, posted 07-29-2012 6:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2012 10:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024