NationStates Jolt Archive

I have travelled to countries in the third world were gun laws are very loose, fire arms are easy to acquire and the threat of armed robbery is very real. To defend themselves from the possibility of being robbed store owners and taxi drivers arm themselves and residential owners get together with their neighbours to hire vigilantes to patrol the neighbourhood. Thus, it is not uncommon to walk down the street and see a gas station attendant carrying a shotgun or hear shots being fired in the middle of the night. It is not uncommon to see bullet holes in the chassis of a police car or learn that a child has been gunned down during a drive by shooting. I am curious to hear logical arguments from anyone who believes the civil liberty of being able to own a gun is more important than living in a world where children don't have to be afraid of getting hit by a stray bullet on their way to school.

Because self defense is a basic human right. Weapon ownership is just an extension of that basic human right.

And it's been shown multiple times, strict gun restrictions only affect law abiding citizens and not the criminals.

I am curious to hear logical arguments from anyone who believes the civil liberty of being able to own a gun is more important than living in a world where children don't have to be afraid of getting hit by a stray bullet on their way to school.

Red herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)

Because self defense is a basic human right. Weapon ownership is just an extension of that basic human right.

And it's been shown multiple times, strict gun restrictions only affect law abiding citizens and not the criminals.



Where has it been shown?

Red herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)

I am not making an arguement but rather inviting one. So how does the red herring apply?

You know what? I was just thinking that there aren't enough discussions on gun control at the moment...

It's not the guns themselves that cause the harm, it's the people. Even without guns, people, especually in the third world will resort to some other way to get what they feel they need.

red herring applies because the response that in only affects law abiding citizens is a diversion.
the truth is, if you want to stop the violence on both ends, you could stop manufacturing so many guns to begin with, saying it's better with than without really did not have a point other than to discount the first statement made, and with no proof to back it up.

I am not making an arguement but rather inviting one. So how does the red herring apply?

You are introducing the contention that "the civil liberty of being able to own a gun" is somehow even remotly connected to "living in a world where children have to be afraid of getting hit by a stray bullet on their way to school."

It's a red herring, which also contains a straw man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html), enclosed in a quasi-begged question.

But, then again, I believe you are a troll (oh, please, "I am new to the Internet"), so whatever.

You are introducing the contention that "the civil liberty of being able to own a gun" is somehow even remotly connected to "living in a world where children have to be afraid of getting hit by a stray bullet on their way to school."

It's a red herring, which also contains a straw man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html), enclosed in a quasi-begged question.

But, then again, I believe you are a troll (oh, please, "I am new to the Internet"), so whatever.

In your link to "strawman" I found this... "One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person"

If you think I'm a troll don't respond. If you have something intelligent to say regarding gun laws I'm open to your arguments.

It's not the guns themselves that cause the harm, it's the people. Even without guns, people, especually in the third world will resort to some other way to get what they feel they need.

Thanks for the response.

I agree that people are capable of harming others without guns. But do guns make it easier and are innocent bystanders more likely to be injured in an act of violence commited by with a gun?

Gun laws shouldn't be so loose that you see people walking around :mp5: each other, but you should be able to have a gun. If guns were removed entirely, robbery would go up, becuase all the robber would have to worry about would be being punched or stabbed which is much easier to avoid than being blasted away.

Gun laws shouldn't be so loose that you see people walking around :mp5: each other, but you should be able to have a gun. If guns were removed entirely, robbery would go up, becuase all the robber would have to worry about would be being punched or stabbed which is much easier to avoid than being blasted away.

Thanks for the response.

Regarding your point that if guns were removed entirely robbery (crime) would go up, don't you think that the police are sufficient deterent? And if they aren't, why is it that countries with less ristrictive gun laws have higher crime rates?

Thanks for the response.

Regarding your point that if guns were removed entirely robbery (crime) would go up, don't you think that the police are sufficient deterent? And if they aren't, why is it that countries with less ristrictive gun laws have higher crime rates?
Good point, I forgot about the police, but my statement as to the fear ratio for criminals is that in Florida, women are allowed to carry a hangun in their purse, I don't think anyone is going to try to mug them. The police help out, but having a gun at hand ready to use to defend yourself is good. countries with low restriction gun laws allow people to own tons of guns and assult rifles. That's bad.

I'm new to the internet so please excuse me if this message ends up in the wrong place. But I recently read some arguements for and against gun laws and would like to get your reaction to the following:

I have travelled to countries in the third world were gun laws are very loose, fire arms are easy to acquire and the threat of armed robbery is very real. To defend themselves from the possibility of being robbed store owners and taxi drivers arm themselves and residential owners get together with their neighbours to hire vigilantes to patrol the neighbourhood. Thus, it is not uncommon to walk down the street and see a gas station attendant carrying a shotgun or hear shots being fired in the middle of the night. It is not uncommon to see bullet holes in the chassis of a police car or learn that a child has been gunned down during a drive by shooting. I am curious to hear logical arguments from anyone who believes the civil liberty of being able to own a gun is more important than living in a world where children don't have to be afraid of getting hit by a stray bullet on their way to school.
What you speak of is due to general lawlessness, not specifically gun ownership. Things are completely different in the US. In states where there are concealed carry laws, the crime rate has dropped precipitously, my own State of North Carolina is a good example of that.

Why is it that I can't own a nuke under 'the right to bare arms' in the States?

Why is it that I can't own a nuke under 'the right to bare arms' in the States?

:P A nuke isnt something you can hold in your arms. It somethin you drop out of a plane, silly.

Why is it that I can't own a nuke under 'the right to bare arms' in the States?
Can you afford to buy a nuke? Can you set up a silo to use it on the unfortunate woodland animals? (I like the phrase woodland animal, I dunno why) Even so, countries own nukes, but noone uses one. If you used a nuke, environmentalists would be made and everyone would be blasting you to hell. I think it's in your best intrest to not attempt to obtain a nuke.

People always seem to fight against these ideas of gun control, but I can tell you that it means nothing. Explain if you can how at a Junior high that I attended every child had possesion of at least one gun and several other weapons. Now tell me why 12-15 year old kids are able to get their hands on this in a place thta does have major gun laws. So instead of trying to get more laws in place, why not try and enforce the ones you already have?

People always seem to fight against these ideas of gun control, but I can tell you that it means nothing. Explain if you can how at a Junior high that I attended every child had possesion of at least one gun and several other weapons. Now tell me why 12-15 year old kids are able to get their hands on this in a place thta does have major gun laws. So instead of trying to get more laws in place, why not try and enforce the ones you already have?
Exactly. We don't need more gun restriction laws, all we need is to have them enforced.

Can you afford to buy a nuke? Can you set up a silo to use it on the unfortunate woodland animals? (I like the phrase woodland animal, I dunno why) Even so, countries own nukes, but noone uses one. If you used a nuke, environmentalists would be made and everyone would be blasting you to hell. I think it's in your best intrest to not attempt to obtain a nuke.

Yes, I can afford it. I already have a silo which I converted from a grain silo. I don't care what's in my best interest, it should be my right to protect myself with a weapon, why can't I own a nuke?

Yes, I can afford it. I already have a silo which I converted from a grain silo. I don't care what's in my best interest, it should be my right to protect myself with a weapon, why can't I own a nuke?
Ok then, if you can find one and transport it to your grain silo, have fun. One warning though, using it against a criminal might blast the hell out of everything. Also, the feds might be mad about you having a nuke anyway. Good luck though.

Ok then, if you can find one and transport it to your grain silo, have fun. One warning though, using it against a criminal might blast the hell out of everything. Also, the feds might be mad about you having a nuke anyway. Good luck though.

The feds might be mad? Aren't they the ones who ensure that i have the right to bare arms? I realise nukes cause a lot of damage, that's kind of the point of having one.

You'd have no problem with me owning a nuke?

Good point, I forgot about the police, but my statement as to the fear ratio for criminals is that in Florida, women are allowed to carry a hangun in their purse, I don't think anyone is going to try to mug them. The police help out, but having a gun at hand ready to use to defend yourself is good. countries with low restriction gun laws allow people to own tons of guns and assult rifles. That's bad.

A purse snatcher, rapist or any other thug out there will not know that a woman has a gun if she keeps it in her purse. So how is this a deterrent unless she has a sign on her purse saying "I am carrying a gun"? Also, if a woman is carrying a gun in her purse and a thief manages to steal her purse before she can draw her gun, then she has unintentionally armed a criminal.

You're last statement confuses me. Does this mean you believe in some gun laws just not excessively restrictive gun laws? If so, what would be your parameters?

A purse snatcher, rapist or any other thug out there will not know that a woman has a gun if she keeps it in her purse. So how is this a deterrent unless she has a sign on her purse saying "I am carrying a gun"? Also, if a woman is carrying a gun in her purse and a thief manages to steal her purse before she can draw her gun, then she has unintentionally armed a criminal.

You're last statement confuses me. Does this mean you believe in some gun laws just not excessively restrictive gun laws? If so, what would be your parameters?
Some gun laws are good. Ex. A law that keeps people from getting bazookas and mortars and landmines and blowing up the block is good. A law that keeps people from owning even a simple rifle is bad. It is a deterrant, the lady doesn't actually even have to have a pistol on her person. If the law says they can carry them, it would worry the would-be criminal and he would have to compare the pluses and negatives of getting some cash and possibly getting blasted or staying with what he's got and running no risk of getting blasted.

What you speak of is due to general lawlessness, not specifically gun ownership. Things are completely different in the US. In states where there are concealed carry laws, the crime rate has dropped precipitously, my own State of North Carolina is a good example of that.

I'm not from the U.S. so I'm not familiar with how your gun laws vary from state to state. Are some states more restrictive than others, does the crime rate reflect this and if so, how?

:P A nuke isnt something you can hold in your arms. It somethin you drop out of a plane, silly.

Are you barring his right to fly a plane?

People always seem to fight against these ideas of gun control, but I can tell you that it means nothing. Explain if you can how at a Junior high that I attended every child had possesion of at least one gun and several other weapons. Now tell me why 12-15 year old kids are able to get their hands on this in a place thta does have major gun laws. So instead of trying to get more laws in place, why not try and enforce the ones you already have?

I agree that we should enforce the laws that are already in place. The debate is what laws we should be enforcing. Also I'm curious to hear where you went to school. This is just an assumption and if I'm wrong please correct me, but whenever I hear about children using guns I tend to think they got it from an adult who aquired it legally.

kids in our country are gunned down in the streets because of criminals who own guns illegally they dont give a fuck whether or not gun laws are loose or very restricted
to defend yourself is a good thing but you should have to be able to think intelligently to own a gun and be able to make good decisions
i have grown up around guns and i would never shoot someone, unless i had to protect my girlfriend or family
some people dont grow up around weapons and are just awed that they have one and they dont know safety, smart handling, smart actions when you are handling around other people(like pointing the barrely either at teh floor or at the ceiling)
all over my city there are people who have to live in fear of being shot and there are plenty of people with bullet holes in their houses and there is probably a shooting every day to every other day
restricting the posession of firearms will not help reduce shootings or crime it will just make it a pain in the ass for people who hunt or target shoot or own a weapon simply for ease of mind and safety

The feds might be mad? Aren't they the ones who ensure that i have the right to bare arms? I realise nukes cause a lot of damage, that's kind of the point of having one.

You'd have no problem with me owning a nuke?


Bravo.

in response to a post just above there are many places and people that you can buy and sell firearms illegally

and what we should do is have it so that people must have their weapons registered and the government should do something to make sure that the person who "owns" the weapon actually has it and hasnt sold it off the records

The simplest way to put it is thus:

In Vermont, they have "open concealed-carry," that is, anyone can carry a concealed weapon without having to have a special permit. Vermont also has one of the lowest crime rates in America.
In Washington, DC, they have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Interestingly enough, they also have damn near the highest crime rate in the nation.

"If more people carried guns, criminals wouldn't know who was armed."

Yes, I can afford it. I already have a silo which I converted from a grain silo. I don't care what's in my best interest, it should be my right to protect myself with a weapon, why can't I own a nuke?

If you could control the yield of the nuke so that only the person you are defending yourself against recieves all the direct results of detonating that nuke, and that the residual affects effects would also be restricted to that one person, then sure, you can have one.

Some gun laws are good. Ex. A law that keeps people from getting bazookas and mortars and landmines and blowing up the block is good. A law that keeps people from owning even a simple rifle is bad. It is a deterrant, the lady doesn't actually even have to have a pistol on her person. If the law says they can carry them, it would worry the would-be criminal and he would have to compare the pluses and negatives of getting some cash and possibly getting blasted or staying with what he's got and running no risk of getting blasted.

Re: The example of the thief who has to weigh the pluses and minuses for fear he might get blown away. Do you think this will only encourage the thief to get himself a gun and use excessive violence? Also, if civilians decide to arm themselves to protect themselves from criminals and criminals arm themselves to make themselves more efficient criminals doesn't this mean that the police loose their edge in enforcing the law?

If you could control the yield of the nuke so that only the person you are defending yourself against recieves all the direct results of detonating that nuke, and that the residual affects effects would also be restricted to that one person, then sure, you can have one.

That's a fair point....except for the fact that U.S. citizens are garunteed the right to bare arms as part of 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'. I'm not entitled to a weapon purely for the purpose of defending myself from criminals but also, for example, invading countries. If I am attacking, let's say, England, I would have no need to control the yield of my weapon. Not to mention the fact that 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Would limiting the size of the weapon I can carry to protect myself from England not be an infringment of my right to carry said weapon?

Where has it been shown?

Kennesaw, Georgia

in response to a post just above there are many places and people that you can buy and sell firearms illegally

and what we should do is have it so that people must have their weapons registered and the government should do something to make sure that the person who "owns" the weapon actually has it and hasnt sold it off the records

The more guns that are sold legally the more difficult it will be to keep tabs on them.

If you could control the yield of the nuke so that only the person you are defending yourself against recieves all the direct results of detonating that nuke, and that the residual affects effects would also be restricted to that one person, then sure, you can have one.

How can you contain the residual effects of a stray bullet?

Gronik']The simplest way to put it is thus:

In Vermont, they have "open concealed-carry," that is, anyone can carry a concealed weapon without having to have a special permit. Vermont also has one of the lowest crime rates in America.
In Washington, DC, they have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Interestingly enough, they also have damn near the highest crime rate in the nation.

"If more people carried guns, criminals wouldn't know who was armed."

What is the population of Vermont and what is the population of Washington?

That's a fair point....except for the fact that U.S. citizens are garunteed the right to bare arms as part of 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'. I'm not entitled to a weapon purely for the purpose of defending myself from criminals but also, for example, invading countries. If I am attacking, let's say, England, I would have no need to control the yield of my weapon. Not to mention the fact that 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Would limiting the size of the weapon I can carry to protect myself from England not be an infringment of my right to carry said weapon?

From what I understand, "the right to keep and bear arms" was legislated during a period when the U.S. faced a serious possibility that England might try to reclaim the colonies. Should laws change to fit the times? And, also, with a great deal of respect to anyone who lost a loved one on September 11, 2001, would the right to bear arms on a commercial airliner have prevented the hijacking of those planes?

That's a fair point....except for the fact that U.S. citizens are garunteed the right to bare arms as part of 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'. I'm not entitled to a weapon purely for the purpose of defending myself from criminals but also, for example, invading countries. If I am attacking, let's say, England, I would have no need to control the yield of my weapon. Not to mention the fact that 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Would limiting the size of the weapon I can carry to protect myself from England not be an infringment of my right to carry said weapon?
Ahh, but if you examine the period definition of "arms" or even read a handful of entries from the federalist papers you will see what, in all likelihood, they truly meant.
The term arms is referring to man portable instruments of war.
So rifles: Yes, Pistols: Yes, Machine Guns: Yes, Nukes/Bombs/Tanks/Fighter Jets: NO

The fact is that if you where to make a law that banned all firearms from your country, why would the CRIMINALS respect that law any more then they would respect all of the other laws they broke to earn the title of CRIMINAL? You would just be disarming you law abiding citizens (the first step to tyranny). I mean, think about it, in most countries drugs are illegal to some extent, yet I guarantee no one can name me a country that has managed to stop the flow of drugs into their country, what makes you think you can do it with guns?

Also, if you look at the various reports on the subject, the more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens the lower the violent crime rates go. I suggest you look up the Lott-Mustard report for a boatload of facts showing this.

The solution, in my ever so humble opinion, is to encourage law-abiding citizens to arm themselves and put heavier penalties on crimes involving firearms, not just banning firearms from everyone.

Unfortunatley, many people do not think past the emotional conclusions that guns are scary and can hurt people so they should be done away with.

All this gun talk has me wanting to go to the firing range. Cyas later! :sniper:

Some gun laws are good. Ex. A law that keeps people from getting bazookas and mortars and landmines and blowing up the block is good. A law that keeps people from owning even a simple rifle is bad. It is a deterrant, the lady doesn't actually even have to have a pistol on her person. If the law says they can carry them, it would worry the would-be criminal and he would have to compare the pluses and negatives of getting some cash and possibly getting blasted or staying with what he's got and running no risk of getting blasted.

So do you think that purse snatching should be punishable by death?

So do you think that purse snatching should be punishable by death?
Lol no

Because self defense is a basic human right. Weapon ownership is just an extension of that basic human right.

And it's been shown multiple times, strict gun restrictions only affect law abiding citizens and not the criminals.

Where?

Kennesaw Goergia

How?

Self defense is a basic human right. I agree, this is why I pay taxes to a government to maintain an environment in which I use either my mind or physical labour and not violence in order to survive. If weapon ownership is an extension of the right to defend oneself, why do we need police?

Lol no

then what is a lady going to do with the gun in her purse? wave it at the thief?

then what is a lady going to do with the gun in her purse? wave it at the thief?
Throw it at him! :p
It's late and I'm goin to bed.

From what I understand, "the right to keep and bear arms" was legislated during a period when the U.S. faced a serious possibility that England might try to reclaim the colonies. Should laws change to fit the times? And, also, with a great deal of respect to anyone who lost a loved one on September 11, 2001, would the right to bear arms on a commercial airliner have prevented the hijacking of those planes?
Should laws change with the times? That's a good question and I guess the answer is kind of an obvious yes. However, the 2nd amendmant remains even though the US no longer faces a major international threat which cannot be controlled though the defence force, the unchanged amendmant still ensures my right to bare arms. I thought the Sep. 11 terrorists used knives?

Ahh, but if you examine the period definition of "arms" or even read a handful of entries from the federalist papers you will see what, in all likelihood, they truly meant.
The term arms is referring to man portable instruments of war.
So rifles: Yes, Pistols: Yes, Machine Guns: Yes, Nukes/Bombs/Tanks/Fighter Jets: NO
What they truely meant does not matter, how they are interpreted and enforced is my concern. Ofcourse they didn't mean nukes, however, when the laws were made which refered to 'man portable instruments of war' they were refering to rifles, pistols and machine guns of their time. NOT assualt rifles. Yet, we have allowed the definition of arms to include modern days versions of these weapons which are vastly different from the weapons that the law was originally meant to include. If we can allow for these more powerful weapons, why does the law not evolve to incorporate all powerful weapons? Also, were people not allowed to carry explosives such as gun-powder/dynamite sticks? If the law allows us to carry advanced pistols/rifles/machine guns, why should advanced explosives not also be included?

The fact is that if you where to make a law that banned all firearms from your country, why would the CRIMINALS respect that law any more then they would respect all of the other laws they broke to earn the title of CRIMINAL? You would just be disarming you law abiding citizens (the first step to tyranny). I mean, think about it, in most countries drugs are illegal to some extent, yet I guarantee no one can name me a country that has managed to stop the flow of drugs into their country, what makes you think you can do it with guns?
Then we should allow drugs to flow freely into the country as we can't seem to stop them, why should we bother trying? If you honestly believe that disarming law-abiding citizens is the first step to tyranny, them disallowing me to hold nuke weapons is a step in that direction.

Also, if you look at the various reports on the subject, the more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens the lower the violent crime rates go. I suggest you look up the Lott-Mustard report for a boatload of facts showing this.
There are plenty of reports that show having NO guns results in NO gun deaths, though that's simple maths there though. If, however, more guns in hands equal less violent crime, why should we limit such an effective deterent of crimes to guns alone?

The solution, in my ever so humble opinion, is to encourage law-abiding citizens to arm themselves and put heavier penalties on crimes involving firearms, not just banning firearms from everyone.

Unfortunatley, many people do not think past the emotional conclusions that guns are scary and can hurt people so they should be done away with.

Many people can't see past the emotional conclusions that nukes are scary as well. Under this system I should be encouraged to own and maintain a supply of powerful weapons. Sure, if I use them in an unlawful manner, punish me, that's only fair.

All this gun talk has me wanting to go to the firing range. Cyas later! Have fun. I'll be hitting the local wasteland once I get my arms to bare.

From what I understand, "the right to keep and bear arms" was legislated during a period when the U.S. faced a serious possibility that England might try to reclaim the colonies. Should laws change to fit the times? And, also, with a great deal of respect to anyone who lost a loved one on September 11, 2001, would the right to bear arms on a commercial airliner have prevented the hijacking of those planes?

Yes & Yes.

The Founding Fathers were as much concerned about personal safety and the newly formed gov't turning terranical as much as an invasion from England. Those first two have not changed.

One person/plane could have stopped the hijackers or at least caused the planes to crash prematurely (like the brave people did on the 4th plane)

Where?

Kennesaw Goergia

How?

Self defense is a basic human right. I agree, this is why I pay taxes to a government to maintain an environment in which I use either my mind or physical labour and not violence in order to survive. If weapon ownership is an extension of the right to defend oneself, why do we need police?

Unfortunately in the US, we have many idiots if front of and behind the bench making decisions like this:

Police not required to protect individual citizens. In Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order." In Bowers v. DeVito (686 F. 2d 616, 1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, "(T)here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

Unfortunately in the US, we have many idiots if front of and behind the bench making decisions like this:

Police not required to protect individual citizens. In Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order." In Bowers v. DeVito (686 F. 2d 616, 1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, "(T)here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

It sounds cold but from a practical point of view, if the decision went the other way people would be able to hold the police and government responsible for not preventing every crime that occured. Obviously the police are not omni-present nor all-powerful and can't prevent every crime that occurs. People would be able to become crime victims just so they could sue. There is no point in legislating that people have a right to absolute protection when threre is no practical way to provide it.

[QUOTE=Bogstonia]Should laws change with the times? That's a good question and I guess the answer is kind of an obvious yes. However, the 2nd amendmant remains even though the US no longer faces a major international threat which cannot be controlled though the defence force, the unchanged amendmant still ensures my right to bare arms. I thought the Sep. 11 terrorists used knives?

This was exactly my point. Had civilians been able to carry firearms on board the plane, this would have included the terrorists since, prior to their actions they were simply civilians. With fire arms and the element of surprise do you think they would have stopped at simply four planes, four targets?

This was exactly my point. Had civilians been able to carry firearms on board the plane, this would have included the terrorists since, prior to their actions they were simply civilians. With fire arms and the element of surprise do you think they would have stopped at simply four planes, four targets?

Probably, but this is terrorists we are talking about. Four planes, four targets is what they wanted to do. If they wanted five, they would have attempted it, they're whackos.

I do see what you mean though, e.g. If I need some money and think that robbing 7-11 is a good idea but all I can get my hands on is a knife....I doubt I'll do it. If I can get an AK-47, I'll be a lot more confident about my chances in the robbery and would be much more likely to genuinly consider doing it.

Anyway, with my nuke I'll just ransom a small country.

Unfortunately in the US, we have many idiots if front of and behind the bench making decisions like this:

Police not required to protect individual citizens. In Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order." In Bowers v. DeVito (686 F. 2d 616, 1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, "(T)here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

Of course, no good conservative or libertarian would seriously maintain that the taxpayers should pay anytime anyone is a victim of a crime.

Trotting out those cases without considering the underlying proposition is rather pointless.

"Police are not required to protect individual citizens" is not really the holding of those cases, as you well know. The question was whether a duty to individual citizens exists which is violated when an individual is a victim of a crime and therefore the citizen (and/or his/her estate) must be compensated.

Would you really hold otherwise?

Of course, no good conservative or libertarian would seriously maintain that the taxpayers should pay anytime anyone is a victim of a crime.

Trotting out those cases without considering the underlying proposition is rather pointless.

"Police are not required to protect individual citizens" is not really the holding of those cases, as you well know. The question was whether a duty to individual citizens exists which is violated when an individual is a victim of a crime and therefore the citizen (and/or his/her estate) must be compensated.

Would you really hold otherwise?

When Law Abiding Citizens are disarmed and/or not "allowed" to defend themselves? Yes.

When gun grabbers go around crying "call 911 instead"? Yes.

"Police are not required to protect individual citizens" is not really the holding of those cases," but it is what it really boils down to. No accountability. As you well know.

This little bit stands out:

"this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen "

"uniformly accepted" by whom? Certainly not the victims.

What is the police motto again? Oh, that's right, to PROTECT & SERVE.

Yes, I can afford it. I already have a silo which I converted from a grain silo. I don't care what's in my best interest, it should be my right to protect myself with a weapon, why can't I own a nuke?
It's an area effect weapon with a high probability of harming innocents as well as any aggressors. Also, there is a difference between arms and ordnance.

Of course, no good conservative or libertarian would seriously maintain that the taxpayers should pay anytime anyone is a victim of a crime.

Trotting out those cases without considering the underlying proposition is rather pointless.

"Police are not required to protect individual citizens" is not really the holding of those cases, as you well know. The question was whether a duty to individual citizens exists which is violated when an individual is a victim of a crime and therefore the citizen (and/or his/her estate) must be compensated.

Would you really hold otherwise?

While I agree with your analysis, I don't want to dismiss the arguement entirely, because it is the arguement that a lot of "right to bear arms" supporters use. I have the right to protect myself in case the government fails me. This exactly the issue dealt with in the movie a Time to Kill, a movie which uses racism to mask the real issue which is vigilantism. If you close your eyes and pretend that Sam Jackson's character is white and his daughter is white, then he is no longer an African American fighting for his rights, but a redneck vigilante. Now the question is, do we try to improve flaws in the current government by learning how the system works, reading through the technical jargon and becoming aware of political issues, or do we go to the shooting range and pretend we're shooting at that son of a bitch Kennedy?

While I agree with your analysis, I don't want to dismiss the arguement entirely, because it is the arguement that a lot of "right to bear arms" supporters use. I have the right to protect myself in case the government fails me. This exactly the issue dealt with in the movie a Time to Kill, a movie which uses racism to mask the real issue which is vigilantism. If you close your eyes and pretend that Sam Jackson's character is white and his daughter is white, then he is no longer an African American fighting for his rights, but a redneck vigilante. Now the question is, do we try to improve flaws in the current government by learning how the system works, reading through the technical jargon and becoming aware of political issues, or do we go to the shooting range and pretend we're shooting at that son of a bitch Kennedy?

Why not do both? I enjoy going to the range as well as working to sustain by rights.

It's an area effect weapon with a high probability of harming innocents as well as any aggressors. Also, there is a difference between arms and ordnance.

What is the difference? How does a nuke, or even an ICBM for arguements sake, not come under the definition of 'arms'?

When Law Abiding Citizens are disarmed and/or not "allowed" to defend themselves? Yes.

When gun grabbers go around crying "call 911 instead"? Yes.

"Police are not required to protect individual citizens" is not really the holding of those cases," but it is what it really boils down to. No accountability. As you well know.

You shouldn't presume to tell me what I "well know" when you are making crap up.

You really believe the taxpayers should compensate every victim of every crime?

I doubt it. I think you are just unwilling to back down from a silly point.

Regardless, as guns are not fully banned, your premises certainly don't apply and you were mistaken in calling the judges that decided those cases "idiots." In fact, the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit extends to Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Indiana is a shall-issue CCW state. :rolleyes:

Police are accountable to the citizenry in many, many ways. That they cannot be sued everytime they fail to prevent a crime is hardly the equivalent of "[n]o accountability."

You might even note that I made no argument or made any point regarding guns or gun control. You injected a whole other agenda that is not present in those cases because you mistakenly think it helps prove your ideological point.

Try to see through the fog of your rhetoric and be reasonable.

Why not do both? I enjoy going to the range as well as working to sustain by rights.

But not your spelling... just kidding. And I hope you were kidding too when you imply that murdering a President is an enjoyable way to maintain civil liberties.

What is the difference? How does a nuke, or even an ICBM for arguements sake, not come under the definition of 'arms'?

Once again, slowly this time. "Arms" are man portable small arms, "Ordinace" is larger and/or non-portable or explosive devices.

You really believe the taxpayers should compensate every victim of every crime?

I doubt it. I think you are just unwilling to back down from a silly point.

Regardless, as guns are not fully banned, your premises certainly don't apply and you were mistaken in calling the judges that decided those cases "idiots." In fact, the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit extends to Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Indiana is a shall-issue CCW state. :rolleyes:

Police are accountable to the citizenry in many, many ways. That they cannot be sued everytime they fail to prevent a crime is hardly the equivalent of "[n]o accountability."

You might even note that I made no argument or made any point regarding guns or gun control. You injected a whole other agenda that is not present in those cases because you mistakenly think it helps prove your ideological point.

Try to see through the fog of your rhetoric and be reasonable.


If the gun banners get their way, yes I do feel the police should be held completely and financially accountable. You notice I put in the if's and when's to my statement.

and Warren occured in DC where guns aren't banned, they're just not allowed to be registered or get approved.

There's such a thing as freedom of speech, or don't you feel that applies to individuals or not incorporated either. I can call a judge, you, or the president an idiot.

Try to pull your head out of the "justice systems" behind and join reality.

What they truely meant does not matter, how they are interpreted and enforced is my concern. Ofcourse they didn't mean nukes, however, when the laws were made which refered to 'man portable instruments of war' they were refering to rifles, pistols and machine guns of their time. NOT assualt rifles. Yet, we have allowed the definition of arms to include modern days versions of these weapons which are vastly different from the weapons that the law was originally meant to include. If we can allow for these more powerful weapons, why does the law not evolve to incorporate all powerful weapons? Also, were people not allowed to carry explosives such as gun-powder/dynamite sticks? If the law allows us to carry advanced pistols/rifles/machine guns, why should advanced explosives not also be included?

But, if you examine the true reason behind the amendment, it was all about allowing the citizens to protect themselves. Not because they wanted people to be able to stand up to Mr. Mugger or Ms. Burglar but because they wanted the American people to be able to stand up to potential threats to America, both foreign and domestic. Lets remember that when the founding fathers wrote this bit of legislation they had just got done using their own firearms to fight off an oppressive force. For them, the 2nd was not some sort of theoretical symbol of the freedoms they wanted their citizens and it certainly had nothing to do with hunting (as the founding fathers probably could not have even imagined somebody taking away a person hunting arms) it was about the right, no the duty to revolution if America should ever be threatened by tyranny.
That being said, it is my belief that all man portable instruments of war should be legalized. Even the full auto ones, because that is what is needed to keep the power in hands of the people.

Then we should allow drugs to flow freely into the country as we can't seem to stop them, why should we bother trying? If you honestly believe that disarming law-abiding citizens is the first step to tyranny, them disallowing me to hold nuke weapons is a step in that direction.

You missed my point almost entirely. My point was that even if you went through the motions to pass a ban on firearms, the criminal aspect would still find a way to sneak em in. The difference between drugs and guns is a VERY big one. Just having a gun does not make me more likely to be a non-productive member of society or possibly commit crimes, while drugs do. You also seem to not understand how our rights work. We have the right to do all the things listed in the Constitution UNLESS it infringes on somebody else's rights. So, I can have the freedom of speech, but cannot yell fire in a crowded theater because it could endanger life. Same thing here, you have the right to arm yourself, but not to the point where you would kill you and everyone for miles around... Lets remain in reality now...

There are plenty of reports that show having NO guns results in NO gun deaths, though that's simple maths there though. If, however, more guns in hands equal less violent crime, why should we limit such an effective deterent of crimes to guns alone?

First of all, if we could get the whole world to agree to complete disarmament, then I would give up my guns right along with everyone else, but the fact is that even if you could somehow (and this is a huge if) keep 100% of all guns out of your country, it would just make your country have that much weaker civil defense. Second of all, I am not sure if you missed it, or if you chose to ignore it because it hurt your argument, but I said in the hands of LAW ABIDING citizens. More guns does not mean less crime, more guns in the hands of stable law abiding people means less violent crime.
Another flaw with your logic is that even though 0 guns means 0 gun crimes it does not mean 0 crimes! I assure you that murder, rape, and assault where around long before guns hit the scenes...

Many people can't see past the emotional conclusions that nukes are scary as well. Under this system I should be encouraged to own and maintain a supply of powerful weapons. Sure, if I use them in an unlawful manner, punish me, that's only fair.

Well, as long as we are taking one another's points to ridiculously illogical extremes, I guess you will be wanting my pocket knife to, as that is dangerous also. And I suppose my car will be next, you could hit someone with it and make quite a mess of things. Then my hammer, you wouldn't want to see what that would do to a persons skull. What next I wonder? Butter knives? Toothpicks? Ball-point pens? Ball of yarn?

Now that we are done being ridiculous (you where done being ridiculous... right?) I don't think anybody in their right mind would make an argument for private people to become nuclear powers, or even have their own tanks, artillery, or other large scale instruments of war.

Remember, being armed give you one last check and balance against the government, a last threat. An ace up the sleeves of the American populace. If we give that up (or allow the government to take it from us) then we are completely at their mercy. I am glad you trust the government that much.
Me? I think I trust myself to look out for my best interests rather then some people thousands of miles away that only come to town to campaign. I suggest you do the same.

Have fun. I'll be hitting the local wasteland once I get my arms to bare.

Thanks. Hope you have fun when/if Uncle Dam decides he no longer wants to listen to all of us little people, and all you can do is sit and watch CNN while sitting on your hands cause you let the government disarm you. I also hope you have fun when/if some scum breaks into your house and you are stuck waiting in your bedroom hoping that the rest of your family is safe because the cops haven't showed up yet and you have no way to protect yourself...
God willing, none of these things will ever happen, but I would MUCH rather plan for the worst and hope for the best then plan for the best and ignore the worst....

Just so no one gets confused, my text is Bold and underline while his is not.

Sorry if this is not an acceptable way to format a post, but it was alot to reply to and this made it easier. :p

But not your spelling... just kidding. And I hope you were kidding too when you imply that murdering a President is an enjoyable way to maintain civil liberties.

It's after midnight here, I'm tired.

and where exactly did I say that I was going to murder the president? I also don't beleive in "thoughtcrime" I couldn't care less about Kennedy but I have imagined several of my previous boss's heads on the targets I use.

Once again, slowly this time. "Arms" are man portable small arms, "Ordinace" is larger and/or non-portable or explosive devices.
Got a link or source for that definition?

Got a link or source for that definition?
Straight from the DOD to you:

Definition of ordnances: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/o/03889.html

They didn't have a definiton for Arms.

But, like I said before, if you read the federalist papers (writen by the founding fathers, by the by) it will become clear what was meant by arms.


EDIT: That was a pretty crappy link, here is the parent link of how I got there so it looks more legit. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/

If the gun banners get their way, yes I do feel the police should be held completely and financially accountable. You notice I put in the if's and when's to my statement.

and Warren occured in DC where guns aren't banned, they're just not allowed to be registered or get approved.

There's such a thing as freedom of speech, or don't you feel that applies to individuals or not incorporated either. I can call a judge, you, or the president an idiot.

Try to pull your head out of the "justice systems" behind and join reality.

Cute.

I in no way denied your right to free speech. It is rather pathetic to cry "you are denying my free speech" anytime anyone makes a cogent criticism of something you've said. If you wish to make idiotic comments, you are free to do so. And I am free to point out that they are idiotic. That is free speech.

You only added the "ifs" and "whens" after I pointed out the flaw in your thinking. I'm glad you have largely abandoned your original premise.

You exaggerate the laws of the District of Columbia. And you fail to explain how that makes any difference to the Seventh Circuit opinion you ridiculed.

You also fail to recognize the holding of those cases is pretty universal law -- in addition to making complete sense.

I actually feel there is much to critique about the judiciary and about many, many cases. But I will continue to correct ignorance when I see it. Something called free speech.

.
But, if you examine the true reason behind the amendment, it was all about allowing the citizens to protect themselves. Not because they wanted people to be able to stand up to Mr. Mugger or Ms. Burglar but because they wanted the American people to be able to stand up to potential threats to America, both foreign and domestic. Lets remember that when the founding fathers wrote this bit of legislation they had just got done using their own firearms to fight off an oppressive force. For them, the 2nd was not some sort of theoretical symbol of the freedoms they wanted their citizens and it certainly had nothing to do with hunting (as the founding fathers probably could not have even imagined somebody taking away a person hunting arms) it was about the right, no the duty to revolution if America should ever be threatened by tyranny.
That being said, it is my belief that all man portable instruments of war should be legalized. Even the full auto ones, because that is what is needed to keep the power in hands of the people.
If America is threatened by tyranny, either foreign or domestic, a nuke is going to be far more affective than 1000 guns.

You missed my point almost entirely. My point was that even if you went through the motions to pass a ban on firearms, the criminal aspect would still find a way to sneak em in. The difference between drugs and guns is a VERY big one. Just having a gun does not make me more likely to be a non-productive member of society or possibly commit crimes, while drugs do. You also seem to not understand how our rights work. We have the right to do all the things listed in the Constitution UNLESS it infringes on somebody else's rights. So, I can have the freedom of speech, but cannot yell fire in a crowded theater because it could endanger life. Same thing here, you have the right to arm yourself, but not to the point where you would kill you and everyone for miles around... Lets remain in reality now... You get the right gun and enough ammo and you can kill yourself and plenty of others. Same with a nuke, so what is wrong with me having one as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others? Who am I hurting if I have a nuke safely and securely kept on my own premises?

First of all, if we could get the whole world to agree to complete disarmament, then I would give up my guns right along with everyone else, but the fact is that even if you could somehow (and this is a huge if) keep 100% of all guns out of your country, it would just make your country have that much weaker civil defense. Second of all, I am not sure if you missed it, or if you chose to ignore it because it hurt your argument, but I said in the hands of LAW ABIDING citizens. More guns does not mean less crime, more guns in the hands of stable law abiding people means less violent crime.
Another flaw with your logic is that even though 0 guns means 0 gun crimes it does not mean 0 crimes! I assure you that murder, rape, and assault where around long before guns hit the scenes...
Well I agree with the first part and yes, total disarmament will never happen. Crimes will still occur and it's my right to defend myself. I am a law abiding citizen, you can do as many background checks as you want before selling me a nuke.

Well, as long as we are taking one another's points to ridiculously illogical extremes, I guess you will be wanting my pocket knife to, as that is dangerous also. And I suppose my car will be next, you could hit someone with it and make quite a mess of things. Then my hammer, you wouldn't want to see what that would do to a persons skull. What next I wonder? Butter knives? Toothpicks? Ball-point pens? Ball of yarn?

Now that we are done being ridiculous (you where done being ridiculous... right?) I don't think anybody in their right mind would make an argument for private people to become nuclear powers, or even have their own tanks, artillery, or other large scale instruments of war.

Remember, being armed give you one last check and balance against the government, a last threat. An ace up the sleeves of the American populace. If we give that up (or allow the government to take it from us) then we are completely at their mercy. I am glad you trust the government that much.
Me? I think I trust myself to look out for my best interests rather then some people thousands of miles away that only come to town to campaign. I suggest you do the same.
It's not that I want to be a nuclear power but that the laws which pro-gun owners use as a defence are out-dated and exploited. I am just doing what they do but to the extreme but nothing that is within my rights. Also, possesing a nuke would also be a mjor deterent againt foreign attacks on me or my government trying to opress me unfairly.

No, I don't want you car or your pocket knife or a ball of yarn [Cute, made me think of kittens]. However, if this year 10,000 people in the U.S. purposely run over and kill people with their cars then yeah, I think we should look at who is driving these cars and how they are getting them a little more thoroughly.

Thanks. Hope you have fun when/if Uncle Dam decides he no longer wants to listen to all of us little people, and all you can do is sit and watch CNN while sitting on your hands cause you let the government disarm you. I also hope you have fun when/if some scum breaks into your house and you are stuck waiting in your bedroom hoping that the rest of your family is safe because the cops haven't showed up yet and you have no way to protect yourself...
God willing, none of these things will ever happen, but I would MUCH rather plan for the worst and hope for the best then plan for the best and ignore the worst...
I am planning for the worst. I know that criminals can aquire fully automatic weapons, I want to be able to deter them from attacking me. Sure, maybe if I bought one of those guns I could scare off the criminals but what happens when Uncle Sam does decide he wants to rule with an iron fist [the bastard] my pathetic gun isn't going to pursuade him otherwise. An ICBM into Air Force One would probably do the trick though.

Sorry if this is not an acceptable way to format a post, but it was alot to reply to and this made it easier.
Well it made it alot harder for me :gundge:

Straight from the DOD to you:

Definition of ordnances: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/o/03889.html

They didn't have a definiton for Arms.

But, like I said before, if you read the federalist papers (writen by the founding fathers, by the by) it will become clear what was meant by arms.


EDIT: That was a pretty crappy link, here is the parent link of how I got there so it looks more legit. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/

That's a crappy site usability wise, but meh. Without a definition of arms, you can't assume that ordinance weapons are not included under the broader definition of arms. If you use a dictionary definition of arms, then any offensive weapon from a knife to a hydrogen bomb can be classed as arms but a definition of arms more focused upon the Constitution [Bill of Rights to be exact] would be far better.

I can't get my hands on the federalist papers, so I can't read them. However, the fact that it was written so long ago makes me assume that they didn't include anything about modern day weapons. Did they mention anything about explosive devices at all? Would you be able to tell me where abouts exactly in the papers that these things are mentioned?

If America is threatened by tyranny, either foreign or domestic, a nuke is going to be far more affective than 1000 guns.
You seem to want to selectivly respond to me, so I will just repeat what I have already stated.
Even if the founding fathers somehow foresaw nuclear weapons and somehow specifically said we could all have nukes, you still couldn't have them. Wanna know why? Because you can only exercise your rights as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights, and having the destructive power of a nuclear weapon would definitely be a huge threat to a huge amount of people's rights.

Now for the practical bit, just cause I am feeling chatty. A nuke would, in no way, be a better defensive weapon. A better offense maybe, but not a good defense, and that is what the citizens are armed for: defense. So your argument even falls down there.

Oh yeah, and, one last time, ARMS DOES NOT MEAN ANYHTING MORE THEN MAN PORTABLE SMALL ARMS!
You can make as many comments about nukes in this discussion, but this will be the last time I reply to them, because they are simply not relevant in any way to this discussion. Nice try though.
You get the right gun and enough ammo and you can kill yourself and plenty of others. Same with a nuke, so what is wrong with me having one as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others? Who am I hurting if I have a nuke safely and securely kept on my own premises?
First off, even if I had a gun and enough ammo for everyone in a 5 mile radius, I would be stopped by the cops/national guard/Army/X-Men/Another armed citizen long before I could accomplish even a small portion of what a nuke is capable of doing in less then a second. That is to say nothing of the fallout that would rend the land unusable, something that even the scariest looking "assault weapons" cannot do.
And, on top of all of this, Nukes have no bearing on this conversation. There is no body saying we should have nukes except for you...


Well I agree with the first part and yes, total disarmament will never happen. Crimes will still occur and it's my right to defend myself. I am a law abiding citizen, you can do as many background checks as you want before selling me a nuke. One more time, everyone this time, nukes need not apply to the 2nd amendment party.


It's not that I want to be a nuclear power but that the laws which pro-gun owners use as a defence are out-dated and exploited. I am just doing what they do but to the extreme but nothing that is within my rights. Also, possesing a nuke would also be a mjor deterent againt foreign attacks on me or my government trying to opress me unfairly. Besides the fact that the 2nd has nothing to do with nukes, nukes aren't even that practical of a tool for whole country as it tends to threaten to end the world ever since we weren't the only one packing. So, with that being said, how is a nuke a major deterrent. You would have to be a psycho or a moron to touch off a nuke in the world we live in today without being nuked first, and even then everyone is going to look at you funny from then on out...
Oh yeah, and nukes have nothing to do with the conversation (are you getting as tired of hearing that as I am of saying. I'm not sure that's even possible...)

No, I don't want you car or your pocket knife or a ball of yarn [Cute, made me think of kittens]. However, if this year 10,000 people in the U.S. purposely run over and kill people with their cars then yeah, I think we should look at who is driving these cars and how they are getting them a little more thoroughly.
Well, of course people aren't using their cars as their primary murder weapon because it is alot less practical and efficient. The gun is a much better tool, for either self defense or assault, good or evil.
But, mark my words, if you where to manage to strip away all guns, stabbings would go through the freakin roof. Take away knives and alot of people are going to be beaten to death, take away clubs and hello poisonings and stranglings. Violent crime will happen, guns or no guns. Taking away guns would just cause people to get more creative. I suggest that instead of cracking down on the inanimate object used by the criminal, that we crack down on the criminal himself... Insane idea, I know, but somehow I don't think the gun is ever going to learn its lesson, the person on the other hand might...


I am planning for the worst. I know that criminals can aquire fully automatic weapons, I want to be able to deter them from attacking me. Sure, maybe if I bought one of those guns I could scare off the criminals but what happens when Uncle Sam does decide he wants to rule with an iron fist [the bastard] my pathetic gun isn't going to pursuade him otherwise. An ICBM into Air Force One would probably do the trick though.
I have thought about that quite a bit, actually. If America decided to turn on a dime and go all tyrannical on us, I am not sure all the small arms in the world would allow us to fight them effectively. But I'll be damned if I wouldn't do it or die trying.
The fact is that you have to remain practical and realistic. You also have to remain true to the intent of the law more then just the strictest letter of it. Which means no nukes, it means man portable small arms...

And that is the last you will hear from on the nuke subject...


Well it made it alot harder for me :gundge: Sorry, didn't think about that, did it better this time.

Even if the founding fathers somehow foresaw nuclear weapons and somehow specifically said we could all have nukes, you still couldn't have them. Wanna know why? Because you can only exercise your rights as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights, and having the destructive power of a nuclear weapon would definitely be a huge threat to a huge amount of people's rights.

During the 60's a similar arguement was made when Malcolm X proposed that African Americans form gun clubs. I find the possibility of an armed militia of like minded extremists more of a threat to civil liberties than a government that bans personal possession of fire arms.


...Besides the fact that the 2nd has nothing to do with nukes, nukes aren't even that practical of a tool for whole country as it tends to threaten to end the world ever since we weren't the only one packing.

Nuclear and Atomic type weapons became a threat to humanity from the moment the Americans dropped them on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.


...Well, of course people aren't using their cars as their primary murder weapon because it is alot less practical and efficient. The gun is a much better tool, for either self defense or assault, good or evil.

Opinion: Self defence is ducking behind a wall. The moment you point a gun at someone you are taking an offensive posture.


...But, mark my words, if you where to manage to strip away all guns, stabbings would go through the freakin roof. Take away knives and alot of people are going to be beaten to death, take away clubs and hello poisonings and stranglings. Violent crime will happen, guns or no guns. Taking away guns would just cause people to get more creative. I suggest that instead of cracking down on the inanimate object used by the criminal, that we crack down on the criminal himself... Insane idea, I know, but somehow I don't think the gun is ever going to learn its lesson, the person on the other hand might...

I agree that banning guns will not put an end to violent crimes, but it will put the police in a better position to stop them. ie. I have a better chance of running for help from a madman with a knife then I do a madman with a gun.


...I have thought about that quite a bit, actually. If America decided to turn on a dime and go all tyrannical on us, I am not sure all the small arms in the world would allow us to fight them effectively. But I'll be damned if I wouldn't do it or die trying.

The foolish man dies nobly for a cause, the wise man lives humbly for one.

How can you contain the residual effects of a stray bullet?

If you are trained to know how to fire a weapon, and how to properly aim a weapon, and using an appropriate weapon to the current need, there would be no stray bullets.

We have rather strict gun laws, but, once you have a permit you can arm up rather easily. Also, the use of guns for self defense has never been an issue around here. Our criminal code allows self defense by any means necessary (except nuclear, chemical or biological weapons I think, because obtaining those would be illegal). Heck, some guy was attacked by some other guy with a bottle a few years ago, and he shot him. Courts ok-ed it in the end. Something similar happened to a cop also a few years ago. He shot the attacker in self defense.

And honestly, if some nut attacks me with a bottle or a knife and I have a shotgun or anything else... bye bye asshole...

I really don't get the riot by the anti-gun nuts in America about that law by Jeff (?) Bush.

If you are trained to know how to fire a weapon, and how to properly aim a weapon, and using an appropriate weapon to the current need, there would be no stray bullets.

Firing at a paper target is one thing. Firing against someone who might be firing back is something else.

[QUOTE=Greater Yubari]We have rather strict gun laws, but, once you have a permit you can arm up rather easily. Also, the use of guns for self defense has never been an issue around here. Our criminal code allows self defense by any means necessary (except nuclear, chemical or biological weapons I think, because obtaining those would be illegal). Heck, some guy was attacked by some other guy with a bottle a few years ago, and he shot him. Courts ok-ed it in the end. Something similar happened to a cop also a few years ago. He shot the attacker in self defense.

I'm curious to know where you are from. On your response it says Europe, this could put you anywhere between the U.K. and Russia.

And honestly, if some nut attacks me with a bottle or a knife and I have a shotgun or anything else... bye bye asshole...

What if the asshole who is attacking you has an Uzi?

I'm new to the internet so please excuse me if this message ends up in the wrong place. But I recently read some arguements for and against gun laws and would like to get your reaction to the following:

I have travelled to countries in the third world were gun laws are very loose, fire arms are easy to acquire and the threat of armed robbery is very real. To defend themselves from the possibility of being robbed store owners and taxi drivers arm themselves and residential owners get together with their neighbours to hire vigilantes to patrol the neighbourhood. Thus, it is not uncommon to walk down the street and see a gas station attendant carrying a shotgun or hear shots being fired in the middle of the night. It is not uncommon to see bullet holes in the chassis of a police car or learn that a child has been gunned down during a drive by shooting. I am curious to hear logical arguments from anyone who believes the civil liberty of being able to own a gun is more important than living in a world where children don't have to be afraid of getting hit by a stray bullet on their way to school.

I live in Fairfax County, Virginia. Here, anyone who is not a felon can either obtain a concealed carry permit (and carry a concealed pistol), or they can carry a pistol openly without a permit. Many, since 1995, have taken advantage of this.

Our crime rate was even with a neighboring jurisdiction (Montgomery County, Maryland, where you cannot carry a gun, and owning one is difficult) in 1995. But soon after, our violent crime rate and murder rate dropped to 60 percent less than the gun-restricted county. In all other respects (economy, ethnicity, class distribution, population density) these two counties are IDENTICAL.

We also have no school shootings, and no drive by shootings. Quite unlike the city of Washington, D.C. where guns are COMPLETELY forbidden, and children are shot left and right.

So, take your own opinion with a grain of salt. Your hoped-for "gunfights on the street" scenario NEVER HAPPENED in Fairfax County, Virginia - in fact, just the opposite has happened. We have 60 percent less violent crime - 60 percent less murder, rape, robbery, and assault.

I live in Fairfax County, Virginia. Here, anyone who is not a felon can either obtain a concealed carry permit (and carry a concealed pistol), or they can carry a pistol openly without a permit. Many, since 1995, have taken advantage of this.

Our crime rate was even with a neighboring jurisdiction (Montgomery County, Maryland, where you cannot carry a gun, and owning one is difficult) in 1995. But soon after, our violent crime rate and murder rate dropped to 60 percent less than the gun-restricted county. In all other respects (economy, ethnicity, class distribution, population density) these two counties are IDENTICAL.

We also have no school shootings, and no drive by shootings. Quite unlike the city of Washington, D.C. where guns are COMPLETELY forbidden, and children are shot left and right.

So, take your own opinion with a grain of salt. Your hoped-for "gunfights on the street" scenario NEVER HAPPENED in Fairfax County, Virginia - in fact, just the opposite has happened. We have 60 percent less violent crime - 60 percent less murder, rape, robbery, and assault.


It makes sense. If I were interested in robbing/raping/killing, I certainly wouldnt chose to do so in an area where my victims would be much more likely to be able to effectively defend themselves. I would target an area where its next to impossible for the average person to have a weapon. I'd be reasonably assured that I would be the only one with a weapon and better able to control my victim. I would pick an area where the population is ignorant and afraid of guns, emotional and hysterical about banning them- because I would have so much more power over them then.
The last place I would try to exploit would be where people have likely been brought up with guns. People whose lifestyles include the proper care and handling of a gun. Not only would I expect them to defend themselves with a gun, but they probably own the gun legally under the law and would hit their target-ME!

Cute.

I in no way denied your right to free speech. It is rather pathetic to cry "you are denying my free speech" anytime anyone makes a cogent criticism of something you've said. If you wish to make idiotic comments, you are free to do so. And I am free to point out that they are idiotic. That is free speech.

You only added the "ifs" and "whens" after I pointed out the flaw in your thinking. I'm glad you have largely abandoned your original premise.

You exaggerate the laws of the District of Columbia. And you fail to explain how that makes any difference to the Seventh Circuit opinion you ridiculed.

You also fail to recognize the holding of those cases is pretty universal law -- in addition to making complete sense.

I actually feel there is much to critique about the judiciary and about many, many cases. But I will continue to correct ignorance when I see it. Something called free speech.

Where did I "cry "you are denying my free speech"? Do you recall those discussions where you don't believe the second is an individual right because the courts say so? Do you recognize sarcasm? Or would you rather just move the goalposts some more?


The discussion on why shouldn't we rely on the police? I stated the police aren't obligated to protect you which is what those cases DIRECTLY SAY. YOU then jumped in w/ the question on if I thought the police should be financially responsible. I said yes and when. You whined" I didn't bring gun control into it" which is the whole point of this thread. Now you're being disingeneous and "making crap up".

How am I "exagerating the DC laws? It takes an average of 2 years to get "permission" for a long gun, handguns can't be registered since 1978, and "safe storage" laws put costs in the thousands as well as preventing self defense. That's legalese for gun ban.

"Universal law"? Just like the second isn't an individual right because the lawyers say so. There's also laws preventing some police from arresting known criminals.
The ONLY reason you jumped on this discussion is because I slammed lawyers and judges. There was no "correcting ignorance" involved. Move the goalposts and change the topic some more why don't you.

Firing at a paper target is one thing. Firing against someone who might be firing back is something else.

if you are properly trained with your weapon, you shouldn't be having stray bullets.... Carelessness causes stray bullets, carelessness, and firing about semi-auto.

*snip*

<sigh>

Get a grip. You tried to misuse a couple of cases and got called on it. (If you had been a little less hysterical, you might have noticed I wasn't the only one pointing this out.)

So I'm a *gasp* lawyer. And I disagree with you. Get over it.

if you are properly trained with your weapon, you shouldn't be having stray bullets.... Carelessness causes stray bullets, carelessness, and firing about semi-auto.

Have you been in a fire fight? Have you heard of friendly fire? There are several stray bullets that miss their targets and these are fired by people who are trained to be in combat situations. What makes you think someone who goes to the target range a few times a month will do any better?

Have you been in a fire fight? Have you heard of friendly fire? There are several stray bullets that miss their targets and these are fired by people who are trained to be in combat situations. What makes you think someone who goes to the target range a few times a month will do any better?
You're talking about combat situations, friendly fire/fire fight..... not usually what happens when someone defends themselves with a gun.

2 million defensive gun uses a year. Most without causing any harm to either party, and with no stray bullets.

You're talking about combat situations, friendly fire/fire fight..... not usually what happens when someone defends themselves with a gun.

2 million defensive gun uses a year. Most without causing any harm to either party, and with no stray bullets.


If there were 2 million defensive gun uses and most did not cause harm to either party and there were no stray bullets, where did the bullets go?

If there were 2 million defensive gun uses and most did not cause harm to either party and there were no stray bullets, where did the bullets go?
One does not have to actually fire a gun to be useful. The mere sight of a gun has caused many would be attackers to stop/run away.

I live in Fairfax County, Virginia. Here, anyone who is not a felon can either obtain a concealed carry permit (and carry a concealed pistol), or they can carry a pistol openly without a permit. Many, since 1995, have taken advantage of this.

Our crime rate was even with a neighboring jurisdiction (Montgomery County, Maryland, where you cannot carry a gun, and owning one is difficult) in 1995. But soon after, our violent crime rate and murder rate dropped to 60 percent less than the gun-restricted county. In all other respects (economy, ethnicity, class distribution, population density) these two counties are IDENTICAL.

We also have no school shootings, and no drive by shootings. Quite unlike the city of Washington, D.C. where guns are COMPLETELY forbidden, and children are shot left and right.

So, take your own opinion with a grain of salt. Your hoped-for "gunfights on the street" scenario NEVER HAPPENED in Fairfax County, Virginia - in fact, just the opposite has happened. We have 60 percent less violent crime - 60 percent less murder, rape, robbery, and assault.


I take fries and popcorn with a grain of salt. I would never hope for a gunfights in the street scenario, which is why I'm for more restrictive gun control. Unfortunately gunfights in the streets scenarios do exist and more often then not the guns are imports from nearbye communities.

I take fries and popcorn with a grain of salt. I would never hope for a gunfights in the street scenario, which is why I'm for more restrictive gun control. Unfortunately gunfights in the streets scenarios do exist and more often then not the guns are imports from nearbye communities.
Can you provide any support for these assertions that "gunfights in the streets" happen as often as you imply? Or is that merely your impression of life in these united states?

One does not have to actually fire a gun to be useful. The mere sight of a gun has caused many would be attackers to stop/run away.

What about carrying around a machete? Do you think that might scare away a would be attacker?

How many would be attackers come charging at their victims from fifty meters away? Most victims of violent crimes did not recognise the danger until it already occured. How does waving around a gun deter someone who has a knife to your throat?

I take fries and popcorn with a grain of salt. I would never hope for a gunfights in the street scenario, which is why I'm for more restrictive gun control. Unfortunately gunfights in the streets scenarios do exist and more often then not the guns are imports from nearbye communities.
Do you realize the argument you are posting here? If we ban guns in one location, the "bad guys" will simply import them from another location. If we do not allow the law abiding citizens to own a gun, the only people with guns are the "bad guys" that acquire them illegally. I think your post had the opposite effect of that intended.

What about carrying around a machete? Do you think that might scare away a would be attacker?

How many would be attackers come charging at their victims from fifty meters away? Most victims of violent crimes did not recognise the danger until it already occured. How does waving around a gun deter someone who has a knife to your throat?
Granted there are a few situations when you are taken by surprise and cannot retrieve a concealed weapon. I disagree that you cannot recognize the danger. I think in most situations people anticipate the danger and recognize it before it appears.

Can you provide any support for these assertions that "gunfights in the streets" happen as often as you imply? Or is that merely your impression of life in these united states?

I realise that many of the right to bare arms advocates have been Americans and in responding to them I have had to address this issue on their terms. But my reason for posting this topic, was based on a reaction to the violence I have seen in other countries. However, to answer your question, yes, I do believe that there is a lot of violence on the streets of the U.S. since whenever I take a look at an American news station there seems to be another story about a drive by shooting, a sniper shooting at drivers from an overpass, a highschool kid gunning down his classmates, a cop being killed by a gang member or the FBI surrounding a compound of heavily armed religious fanatics.

From a literary point of view the history of the United States begins with the genocide of its indegenous people and the importation of slaves from Africa. Since then they have glorified war in movies, television and toys. Now I'm not saying the Americans are the only people in the world who do this, but when I travel through the United States, which I try to keep to a minimum, I sense aggression, fear and xenophobia and this impression of Americans is only reinforced when I read so many opinions expressed by people who believe they need to own a gun to protect themselves from their fellow man.

Do you realize the argument you are posting here? If we ban guns in one location, the "bad guys" will simply import them from another location. If we do not allow the law abiding citizens to own a gun, the only people with guns are the "bad guys" that acquire them illegally. I think your post had the opposite effect of that intended.

You seem to describe people in terms of bad and good, black and white with very little grey. A woman who begins her day with no intention of harming anyone might end up and pulling a gun on someone she percieves to be a threat. Let's suppose that she kills that person under the suspicion that this was a potential assailant, when in fact the person she killed meant her no harm. Does this woman become a "bad guy"?

I realise that many of the right to bare arms advocates have been Americans and in responding to them I have had to address this issue on their terms. But my reason for posting this topic, was based on a reaction to the violence I have seen in other countries. However, to answer your question, yes, I do believe that there is a lot of violence on the streets of the U.S. since whenever I take a look at an American news station there seems to be another story about a drive by shooting, a sniper shooting at drivers from an overpass, a highschool kid gunning down his classmates, a cop being killed by a gang member or the FBI surrounding a compound of heavily armed religious fanatics.

From a literary point of view the history of the United States begins with the genocide of its indegenous people and the importation of slaves from Africa. Since then they have glorified war in movies, television and toys. Now I'm not saying the Americans are the only people in the world who do this, but when I travel through the United States, which I try to keep to a minimum, I sense aggression, fear and xenophobia and this impression of Americans is only reinforced when I read so many opinions expressed by people who believe they need to own a gun to protect themselves from their fellow man.
So... in essence.. you are equating the streets of America to Darfur?

Do you realize the argument you are posting here? If we ban guns in one location, the "bad guys" will simply import them from another location. If we do not allow the law abiding citizens to own a gun, the only people with guns are the "bad guys" that acquire them illegally. I think your post had the opposite effect of that intended.


You presume that I am advocating a ban of all guns. Perhaps in the end this would be the best. I simply tried to illustrate that a uniformed control of weapons is necessary. So this way when violence happens in one neighbourhood (country) people from another neighbourhood (country) won't use the arguement "Well there is no violence in our community which allows guns and violence in that community which doesn't allow guns." As if there is some invisible wall that magically keeps guns from one community from spilling over into the next.

So... in essence.. you are equating the streets of America to Darfur?

No I'm equating the streets of America to Santa Ana high in California, Columbine High in Denver Colorado, Waco Texas, East L.A., the Bronx, Detroit, Washington D.C., Miami, and if I had to I'm sure I could find you several other examples.

<sigh>

Get a grip. You tried to misuse a couple of cases and got called on it. (If you had been a little less hysterical, you might have noticed I wasn't the only one pointing this out.)

So I'm a *gasp* lawyer. And I disagree with you. Get over it.

And the goal posts are moved once again..

No I'm equating the streets of America to Santa Ana high in California, Columbine High in Denver Colorado, Waco Texas, East L.A., the Bronx, Detroit, Washington D.C., Miami, and if I had to I'm sure I could find you several other examples.
Sorry, add up all you mentioned, plus all the other major headline grabbing incidents you didnt mention and it still wont add up to the impression you are trying to make of gun fights in the street, mass murders.

And I will still take the 2,000,000 defensive gun uses vs 347,705 gun crimes (concidering some of those 2 mil are added into the 347k)

Sorry, add up all you mentioned, plus all the other major headline grabbing incidents you didnt mention and it still wont add up to the impression you are trying to make of gun fights in the street, mass murders.

And I will still take the 2,000,000 defensive gun uses vs 347,705 gun crimes (concidering some of those 2 mil are added into the 347k)

And I will take a bullet proof vest next time i visit your part of the world.

And I will take a bullet proof vest next time i visit your part of the world.

Depending on where you go, those are sometimes illegal as well, especially in areas where guns are banned.

Depending on where you go, those are sometimes illegal as well, especially in areas where guns are banned.

So are you saying that it is it illegal for me to wear a bullet proof vest but it's okay for me to carry a gun?

While I agree with your analysis, I don't want to dismiss the arguement entirely, because it is the arguement that a lot of "right to bear arms" supporters use. I have the right to protect myself in case the government fails me.

Now that we can discuss this w/o interference:

Miller was a case in '81 where some old ladies in DC (where guns are effectively nonexistant for LAC's and crime was skyrocketing) called 911 reporting a breakin. By the time the police arrived, over a half hour later, several of the women had been beaten/killed. While they may have been denied financial reimbursement, the statements made by the court stated clearly that the police are in not obligated to protect you.

In normal circumstances, I don't feel the police should be held responsible. However, in places like DC, Chicago, etc. where there are heavy restrictions on self-defense, the powers that be are stating that you can't shouldn't defend yourself and the police don't have to. Basically you're screwed.

This doesn't apply only to firearms. Many areas have laws on people carrying/using tazers, mace, any form of "body armor", knives, etc.
So called "safe storage" laws are designed soley to make firearms useless for home defense (hence one less "need" for one) and to make it prohibitively expensive to legally own one (hence removing a desire/ability for firearm ownership).

If there were some magical way to remove all firearms from criminals and to ensure safe ownership w/o the risk of backdoor bans for LAC's, I would be for it. I don't believe that will ever happen, however. ALL the major "Gun Safety" and "Anti-Violence" groups promote a complete disarmament of LAC's and the elimination of the US firearm industry through laws, backdoor bans, and lawsuits.

So are you saying that it is it illegal for me to wear a bullet proof vest but it's okay for me to carry a gun?

In some areas the laws are like that. Many states and localities have widely differing laws while some are consistent.

In some areas the laws are like that. Many states and localities have widely differing laws while some are consistent.

Regardless of whether you are for or against more restrictive gun laws, don't you find dealing with this lack of uniformity in laws from state to state difficult to deal with.

Regardless of whether you are for or against more restrictive gun laws, don't you find dealing with this lack of uniformity in laws from state to state difficult to deal with.

It's a royal pain in the ass, and not just for firearms.

In Illinois, there is a measure to have some uniformity in the laws. Not sure it it will pass, there is a strong dichotomy between Chicago and the rest of the state on this issue (firearms).

Quite a few states are working on what's called "Reciprocity" Laws that allow C/CC licenses to be valid in eachothers states regardless of the specifics as well as other instate measures.

This is one of those issues you have to check into before moving or traveling w/ firearms. Some areas (like Chicago) will confiscate your gun/arrest you if you are stopped while traveling through the city on an interstate highway. The legality of this is very grey but it happens.

Long live Cheese! :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

It's a royal pain in the ass, and not just for firearms.

In Illinois, there is a measure to have some uniformity in the laws. Not sure it it will pass, there is a strong dichotomy between Chicago and the rest of the state on this issue (firearms).

Quite a few states are working on what's called "Reciprocity" Laws that allow C/CC licenses to be valid in eachothers states regardless of the specifics as well as other instate measures.

This is one of those issues you have to check into before moving or traveling w/ firearms. Some areas (like Chicago) will confiscate your gun/arrest you if you are stopped while traveling through the city on an interstate highway. The legality of this is very grey but it happens.

Do you think problems like these could be avoided with a more centralised government? If so, why? If not, what problems would arise from having a more centralised government?

Do you think problems like these could be avoided with a more centralised government? If so, why? If not, what problems would arise from having a more centralised government?

The thing is, the US isn't just one government, each state is its own government with its own set of laws. What caused the civil war was a battle by southern states to protect their own rights (albeit we don't agree with every law they wanted, the point still remains). American's don't want a strong central government. We do not want socialism, and therefor deal with the problems of varying state laws.

The thing is, the US isn't just one government, each state is its own government with its own set of laws. What caused the civil war was a battle by southern states to protect their own rights (albeit we don't agree with every law they wanted, the point still remains). American's don't want a strong central government. We do not want socialism, and therefor deal with the problems of varying state laws.

Please excuse my ignorance, but if each state is it's own government why was there a civil war? Couldn't the Southern states just make their own laws about slavery and let the Northern states make theirs?

Also, why are Americans against a strong central government? From what I understand the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces and has the power to veto bills which implies that the power structure is centralised in one person.

Please excuse my ignorance, but if each state is it's own government why was there a civil war? Couldn't the Southern states just make their own laws about slavery and let the Northern states make theirs?

Also, why are Americans against a strong central government? From what I understand the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces and has the power to veto bills which implies that the power structure is centralised in one person.

Each state is not it's own independant gov't. The Federal Gov't is dominant but the States regulate areas not expressly covered by the Feds. Areas covered by the Fed Gov't can be made stricter in general unless specifically stated it cannot be, but not more relaxed.

For example, to own a fully automatic weapon, you need a Federal Class III dealers license. A few states have banned these outright, but a state couldn't allow them w/o the license.

I don't think a stronger centralized gov't would make things easier/simpler in general. The US is such a large collection of different beliefs, economics, cultures, etc. that what works in one area doesn't necessarily work in another. Once again, in general, I feel if something affects the US on a Nat'l/or international level, the Federal Gov't should deal w/ it (major businesses, military, etc) while leaving most items to the states.

So if CA wants to ban all guns in the state, or VA make everything legal, then that's the states' business, when CA tries to sue the gun industry to put it out of existance, then it becomes a federal issue.

As for the slave issue, quite a few of the arguements came from trade and the expansion that was occuring during the time. Which new state would be slave/not-slave therefore changing the federal balance caused quite a few nasty conflicts even before the war. The issue of escaped slaves that made it to non-slave states also heated the conflict.

But that's another discussion.

"I don't think a stronger centralized gov't would make things easier/simpler in general. The US is such a large collection of different beliefs, economics, cultures, etc. that what works in one area doesn't necessarily work in another."

In New York city there are people of many races, ethnic backgrounds, economic status, etc. Yet they all abide the same laws. You don't think this could work on a national level?

"I don't think a stronger centralized gov't would make things easier/simpler in general. The US is such a large collection of different beliefs, economics, cultures, etc. that what works in one area doesn't necessarily work in another."

In New York city there are people of many races, ethnic backgrounds, economic status, etc. Yet they all abide the same laws. You don't think this could work on a national level?

Not as likely. It's still such a small area compared to the rest of the country that an individual could talk to their local council member and have a better chance of changing things than an area the size and population of the entire US. It's a scale issue. Plus if you don't like NY, you can move to VA or HI, etc.

I'm not saying it COULDN'T work, just that I don't think it would make things any better, just more consistant.

Not as likely. It's still such a small area compared to the rest of the country that an individual could talk to their local council member and have a better chance of changing things than an area the size and population of the entire US. It's a scale issue. Plus if you don't like NY, you can move to VA or HI, etc.

I'm not saying it COULDN'T work, just that I don't think it would make things any better, just more consistant.

You think a centralised government would make things more consistent?

I have travelled to countries in the third world were gun laws are very loose, fire arms are easy to acquire and the threat of armed robbery is very real.Yeah! Unlike Washington D.C where guns are very difficult to get and pistols are banned, where there is a very low crime rate and no murders or armed robberies! :rolleyes:

/sarcasm

You think a centralised government would make things more consistent?

Only if we define centralised as one in control of everything and even then not always, only in a general sense, like one set of rules for a game even though the rules are convoluted, contain a thousand exceptions, and make no sense. Kind of like the IRS and the federal tax code.

Overall, I'm not a big fan of "strong"/large gov't of any type, be it federal, state, or local, preferring them to stay out of my personal/social/financial life as much as possible, doing only what is absolutely necessary to keep things running.

Yeah! Unlike Washington D.C where guns are very difficult to get and pistols are banned, where there is a very low crime rate and no murders or armed robberies! :rolleyes:

/sarcasm

Remember, handguns aren't "really" banned in DC. You just have to register them and the registration closed in 1978 so any ones registered before that are perfectly legal as long as you keep them stored, inactive in a multi-thousand dollar safe w/ the ammo in another room and accept warrantless searches to inspect your setup.

Please excuse my ignorance, but if each state is it's own government why was there a civil war? Couldn't the Southern states just make their own laws about slavery and let the Northern states make theirs?

Also, why are Americans against a strong central government? From what I understand the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces and has the power to veto bills which implies that the power structure is centralised in one person.

The civil war was because of several issues to -include- slavery, but a declaration by the President freed slaves, which compromised the laws of the south. There are several threads about the civil war but I won't go into all its details here.

About vetos, the President yes can veto a bill, however Congress can overrule a veto with a 3/5ths vote in both the House and Senate.

And being the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces does not affect control over the nation. Which is exactly what we don't want about a stronger centralized government, nor a weak one. Our military is not used to ensure the power of any individual in the government. Also, military leaders and justice are selected and supervised by the 2 hourses of congress, further reducing the Presidents actual control over the armed forces, and the nation. Congress is the power of the nation, more accurately.

Only if we define centralised as one in control of everything and even then not always, only in a general sense, like one set of rules for a game even though the rules are convoluted, contain a thousand exceptions, and make no sense. Kind of like the IRS and the federal tax code.

Overall, I'm not a big fan of "strong"/large gov't of any type, be it federal, state, or local, preferring them to stay out of my personal/social/financial life as much as possible, doing only what is absolutely necessary to keep things running.

Does the state you live in allow you more or less freedoms then others?

The civil war was because of several issues to -include- slavery, but a declaration by the President freed slaves, which compromised the laws of the south. There are several threads about the civil war but I won't go into all its details here.

About vetos, the President yes can veto a bill, however Congress can overrule a veto with a 3/5ths vote in both the House and Senate.

And being the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces does not affect control over the nation. Which is exactly what we don't want about a stronger centralized government, nor a weak one. Our military is not used to ensure the power of any individual in the government. Also, military leaders and justice are selected and supervised by the 2 hourses of congress, further reducing the Presidents actual control over the armed forces, and the nation. Congress is the power of the nation, more accurately.


So if congress overules a veto then the bill becomes a law?

Also you mentioned the House and Senate, I'm guessing that the Senate is made up of Senators from the different states and the House is...?

Does the state you live in allow you more or less freedoms then others?

In the area of self defense, less. but better than in Chicago, (I'm in Illinois). I pay more in state/local taxes than average but generally run the norm/average for a rural area from what I know.

So if congress overules a veto then the bill becomes a law?

Also you mentioned the House and Senate, I'm guessing that the Senate is made up of Senators from the different states and the House is...?

The Senate is full of senators, yes (^^) 2 senators per state. The house is the House of Representatives, who's members a determined by the population of each state. Thus, there are more Californian Representatives than say Vermont. the House is determined by population, the Senate by 2/state. If the House and Senate each get 3/5ths to vote for a law, than it overrules the veto and becomes law.

In the area of self defense, less. but better than in Chicago, (I'm in Illinois). I pay more in state/local taxes than average but generally run the norm/average for a rural area from what I know.

Other than gun laws and land tax, are their other differences between states?
For example, age of consent, abortion, etc...

That's a fair point....except for the fact that U.S. citizens are garunteed the right to bare arms as part of 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'. I'm not entitled to a weapon purely for the purpose of defending myself from criminals but also, for example, invading countries. If I am attacking, let's say, England, I would have no need to control the yield of my weapon. Not to mention the fact that 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Would limiting the size of the weapon I can carry to protect myself from England not be an infringment of my right to carry said weapon?

Ah but the argument was about self-defense, not national defense. The issue with national defense is that having someone capable of destroying the capitol as fear of the nation being corrupt (remember, the purpose of weapons is also to abolish a government, if necessary) would be highly risky. Basically, our government has been set up to prevent that right given in the Constitution. I know I'm not the only one who noticed that.

The Senate is full of senators, yes (^^) 2 senators per state. The house is the House of Representatives, who's members a determined by the population of each state. Thus, there are more Californian Representatives than say Vermont. the House is determined by population, the Senate by 2/state. If the House and Senate each get 3/5ths to vote for a law, than it overrules the veto and becomes law.

Where do Governors fit in? And are both Representatives and Senators elected by popular vote?

So if congress overules a veto then the bill becomes a law?

Also you mentioned the House and Senate, I'm guessing that the Senate is made up of Senators from the different states and the House is...?

That is correct, unless the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional.

...Made up of Representatives from districts w/i the states based on population. The Senate has only two per. It was a compromise to allow for an equal representation regardless of size of population of the state but still accounting for it.

Where do Governors fit in? And are both Representatives and Senators elected by popular vote?

Governors are sort of like the president of the state. There is also a state level house and senate as well as state supreme court.

For federal, the house has always been by popular vote. The Senate started out by being voted by state legistlature then was changed by consitutional amendment to popular vote.

Where do Governors fit in? And are both Representatives and Senators elected by popular vote?

The governors of each state run the state and state alone. The powers of each governor depend on the State constitution (yes, each state MUST have a drafted constitution in order to become a state). Governors are not
-directly- connected with Congress, nor the Federal Government.

Senators and Representatives are elected by each state through popular vote, based on state laws. Districts, or other divisions, typically determine how the candidates are chosen and/or voted for.

Thanks for the information from both of you. But I still see problems that arise by having a lack of uniformity between state legislation. For example, in one state you have to be 16 to drink alcohol in another you have to be 21. A town located along the border of these two states has teenagers driving across so they can buy liquor.

Thanks for the information from both of you. But I still see problems that arise by having a lack of uniformity between state legislation. For example, in one state you have to be 16 to drink alcohol in another you have to be 21. A town located along the border of these two states has teenagers driving across so they can buy liquor.

Actually on that one it is pretty standardized at 21. There's also quite a few transportation laws to keep things like that from happening. (example: a 25 yr old couldn't take a 16 yr old girl to the next state to have sex w/ her when it's illegal in thier home state.) Once again, not universal but is sometimes helps.

Actually on that one it is pretty standardized at 21. There's also quite a few transportation laws to keep things like that from happening. (example: a 25 yr old couldn't take a 16 yr old girl to the next state to have sex w/ her when it's illegal in thier home state.) Once again, not universal but is sometimes helps.

Also that is what the federal government is for. For example, the FBI investigates things that have happened within multiple states. Driving laws are determined by the Department of Transportation, amongst other entities. The federal govermnent steps in when there's a case of inter-state problems. They don't fix everything, though.

Actually on that one it is pretty standardized at 21. There's also quite a few transportation laws to keep things like that from happening. (example: a 25 yr old couldn't take a 16 yr old girl to the next state to have sex w/ her when it's illegal in thier home state.) Once again, not universal but is sometimes helps.

I personally think there should be one single age when society views an individual as an adult and when you hit that age you're allowed to vote, join the military, have sex, get married, drink liquor and be tried as an adult. You've stated that the drinking age in the United States has been standardized at 21, do you view this as an improvement to the previous system?

"I don't think a stronger centralized gov't would make things easier/simpler in general. The US is such a large collection of different beliefs, economics, cultures, etc. that what works in one area doesn't necessarily work in another."

In New York city there are people of many races, ethnic backgrounds, economic status, etc. Yet they all abide the same laws. You don't think this could work on a national level?

What will work in New York will get you killed in the non-urban areas of Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. It's not just Culture it's Climate, Geography, undlying geology, and densities-and economics.

Check it out: New York works mainly for New Yorkers. It doesn't work for anyone else. People are free to move about the country, and if New York's culture is unacceptable (and for a LOT of us, this is so...) we can move.

Now, take your one-size-fits-all strong central government. Laws now become either unweildy, or unenforceable (more unenforceable than they are presently) to cope with everything from vastly different resource bases, population densities, raw distance, and industrial capacities. Add in a dash of what-works-great in the megacity stretching along the Atlantic Coast from D.C. to Boston (not that much difference, terrain or climate wise) but doesn't work so hot in places where they used to shoot at one another over water-rights...
NO.

Laws that work fine the other way, would bring riot and ruin to the urban hives of the East and West Coasts. (imagine Nevadas "You must pick up a hitchiker along the freeway" law on the New Jersey Turnpike...)

The only way a nation with the sheer scope of the United States can function is to permit the individual states a rather wide lattitude in their self-government.

Putting this back on-topic, In regions of several states, it's a fairly wise idea to have a gun, blankets, water, and food in your car year'round-in case you need them. Put the same car in New York city or Washington D.C. and your car-owner's going to jail.

I personally think there should be one single age when society views an individual as an adult and when you hit that age you're allowed to vote, join the military, have sex, get married, drink liquor and be tried as an adult. You've stated that the drinking age in the United States has been standardized at 21, do you view this as an improvement to the previous system?

Personally I think that whatever the MINIMUM age to join/be drafted into the military is, should also be the MINIMUM age for drinking, smoking, voting, owning a firearm, etc etc.

I personally think there should be one single age when society views an individual as an adult and when you hit that age you're allowed to vote, join the military, have sex, get married, drink liquor and be tried as an adult. You've stated that the drinking age in the United States has been standardized at 21, do you view this as an improvement to the previous system?

the only direct experience I have on the drinking is when the Navy base I was on changed the age from 18 to 21 mostly for political purposes. The business at the base club went to near nil and most of the under 21's just went down to Mexico which caused an increase in problems (arrests/attacks/etc). In this instance, it wasn't an improvement.



IIRC, Louisiana's is 18. Not sure how the border states deal w/ it.

Either way, kids still drink illegally.

On a topic note to people who state there is no "need" for a semi-auto w/ more than 5 (or insert whatever number makes you happy) rounds...

Last night our neighbors poultry sheds were attacked by a pack of coyotes/coy-dogs. He lost dozens of birds costing him into the thousands.

There were more than 10 dogs.

On a topic note to people who state there is no "need" for a semi-auto w/ more than 5 (or insert whatever number makes you happy) rounds...

Last night our neighbors poultry sheds were attacked by a pack of coyotes/coy-dogs. He lost dozens of birds costing him into the thousands.

There were more than 10 dogs.

Talk to the guy who wants a nuke. He could've taken those dogs out no problem. /sarcasm

Talk to the guy who wants a nuke. He could've taken those dogs out no problem. /sarcasm

HUH?? What's that got to do with the subject? Look, wild-dogs have something Coyotes and Wolves don't-wild dogs have no fear of man. That means that they're much, much, less likely to 'break' under fire-you end up having to kill them outright. and, being creatures of man, they'll kill for the sheer shits and giggles of it-feral dogs kill for fun, not just food.

A 'Nuke' requires more technical equipment just to keep stable than any normal individual can muster, much less handle and maintain. They don't just sit there safe until they're armed. Nukes require thousands of man-hours of maintenance... and using one pretty much guarantees whatever you were protecting is no longer of any value to you.

What I'm saying is, your 'sarcasm' is a red-herring, dude. In areas with feral-dog problems, a lot of bullets on-call is a really, really, good idea if you don't intend to fort up indoors all the time-which was the original statment the previous poster was making.

"I don't think a stronger centralized gov't would make things easier/simpler in general. The US is such a large collection of different beliefs, economics, cultures, etc. that what works in one area doesn't necessarily work in another."

In New York city there are people of many races, ethnic backgrounds, economic status, etc. Yet they all abide the same laws. You don't think this could work on a national level?

Actually, New York City is a great example. People DON'T all abide by the laws on the books there and crime is terrible. Since it doesn't work in New York, there is no logic in trying it on a national level. ;)

The Senate is full of senators, yes (^^) 2 senators per state. The house is the House of Representatives, who's members a determined by the population of each state. Thus, there are more Californian Representatives than say Vermont. the House is determined by population, the Senate by 2/state. If the House and Senate each get 3/5ths to vote for a law, than it overrules the veto and becomes law.


To clarify, it is actually 2/3rds, not 3/5ths to overide a Presidential Veto. 67 votes in the Senate and 324 in the House. Vetos are hard to overide, but are also not often even done if the bill passes with a larger than 2/3rds majority in the first attempt.

Thanks for the information from both of you. But I still see problems that arise by having a lack of uniformity between state legislation. For example, in one state you have to be 16 to drink alcohol in another you have to be 21. A town located along the border of these two states has teenagers driving across so they can buy liquor.

The 21 year old drinking age and the 55 mile per hour speed limit are two examples where the Federal Government stepped in and forced states to do something it felt was right, but the states had many opinions about. No state was forced to change their laws; they were just denied federal tax money for hiway repair (amongst other things) if they didn't change their laws.

Other things like 18 to vote and to be considered a "legal adult" are fairly uniform throughout the 50 states.

A few things that vary widely from place to place even within a state in some cases:

1) Age of consent for sex/marriage.
2) The legality of being same sex oriented (as if a law could change it.)
3) Driving age.
4) The ease of getting a firearms permit/weapon in general.
5) Dancing (yes, I lived in a town for a brief while where school dances were outlawed, think Footloose .)
6) Strip clubs.
7) Hunting.
8) What is taught in schools. (I skipped a year because of a move once because the place we moved to had very cruddy schools compared to where I'd been before. I went back a grade later when we moved to a place with good schools again.)
9) Gambling.

I have read the different postings and I am left with these questions...

1. For those who believe that living conditions in urban areas require different laws than rural areas, aren't there examples of both large, densly populated cities and sparsely populated counties in each state? If this is the case, should laws change from city to city, county to county?

2. To Cadillac Gage, regarding the example of the hitchiker, what makes picking up a hitchiker in Nevada more or less dangerous, compassionate, practical, than picking up a hitchiker in New Jersey?

3. Regarding the wild dog scenario, did the neighbour who lost his poultry own a gun? If not, was there someone in the area he could have called who owned a gun?

4. Regarding New York City, do you think the high crime rate is a result of culture clashes, over population or a mismanagement of the police force?

For the last question I will give an example from my own experience. I used to live in downtown Toronto. On the West side of Yonge Street were retail outlets on the East side were low rent houses and apartment buildings. At night if someone broke a window to one of these department stores there would be a police cruiser on the scene in less than five minutes. On the East side crack dealers and prostitutes walked the streets and it was not uncommon for someone to be attacked, killed or raped in a neighbourhood that was less than one mile from the commercial area where squad cars frequently patrolled.