Slashdot Mirror
Gun Sales Halted By FBI Computer Glitch
Anonymous Coward writes: "The Associated Press
reports that all gun sales in the U.S. have been stopped
[temporarily]. This because of a glitch in the FBI's computers. Hey -- why didn't we think of this before? What a way
to reduce crime and stop the bloodshed!" Perhaps one day the entire world will be as safe as Washington, D.C. and other officially disarmed zones.
I wrote a very long post and then deleted the lot because it just doesn't matter. *I* won't convince anyone. I just think that having anyone around me having a gun is a tremendously bad idea. I have a deep suspicion of the type of person who carrys a penknife around let alone some sort of border line freak with a firearm.
What ever else you cannot deny that your average american gunowner has a tendancy towards trigger happiness.
C
I sometimes write stuff
A few Jews had some guns... a lot of good it really did them.
Imagine how many Nazi citizens used the guns in *their* homes to commit atrocities.
Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
But you see, many people respect skill over brute force. I believe there are a few women, at least, that would like to have the chance to duel with some dolt, and focusing on skill instead of size and strength would allow them to do this. Additionally, this would definitely help those men who were not blessed by nature with big, hulking bodies. It puts everyone on the same playing field, allowing anyone to compete in the game . . . much as firearms do. Only a fool would refuse to respect a woman or small man who also has a gun. This is the point of using tools.
I kind of think the original poster was kidding, though. I would love to have 'dueling laws,' (I read a lot of Heinlein) but don't seriously think they would get a lot of respect these days.
I belive, that the "Right to bear arms" include the right to posses any just about any weapon the government posses. This includes automatic weapons, rocket launchers, what have you ... yes this is an extreame opinion will likely place me as a fring kook, but when the framers on the consitution did not limit on your right for good reason.
Hears helicopters flying overhead, looks out window to see black helicopters landing in front yard ;-)
subsolar
Stop misleading people. Ireland has a population of around 3.5 million. That's about the size of the state of Colorado. IIRC, Ireland had a bad incident where some guy went nuts and shot up a preschool. Pretty rare there, huh? Well, for Colorado, it's pretty rare to have a columbine type incident.
What you're trying to do is compare one apple to a case load of apples. If Ireland were the size of the US (it would have to increase in size 85 times to get there) then you can start comparing the amount of crimes in Ireland to the amount of crimes in the US. Until then, keep your 'emotional logic' in check.
Um, forgive my naivety, but - if a criminal sneaks up behind you and robs you at gunpoint - how is your concealed weapon going to help you then?
It won't, but the good chance that the next person who walks by also has a gun might do the trick.
What we see here on /. are mostly postings from
Young Male White Americans (and I said MOSTLY not ONLY).
The problem is that the population is not comprised of mostly Young Males (even among White Americans).
If YOU need a gun to protect yourself why a 10 year old boy doesn't need one? You know that the 4th grade environment is more violent that you office, don't you?
If YOU need a gun why an 80 year old lady doesn't need one?
How do you decide how much responsability a person has ?(aren't you afraid when you see the 80 year old lady who is shaking when she gets in her car is driving behind you on the highway).
How can you tell when the neighbour you know for a life goes beserk and kills whomever he can see?
Just this week in St. Paul a highschool kid was killes by two others? Without _ANY_ reason... They didn't rob him... They didn't know him...
THEY JUST DROVE BY AND SHOOT HIM.
Maybe he ned a gun too. And a helmet. And a buletproof vest. And an armored bicycle maybe...
Maybe if they didn't have a gun he would have been able to fight... or to run... or to scream for help.
Or the kids in the Columbine or Littleton? (sorry if they are the same) Shouldn't they carry a gun in the highschool library? To DEFEND themselves?
--
And "to protect against the government"... Another "macho" theory. The government IS ALREADY controlling you. And you neighbours too. It is too late...
It boils you like a frog. SLOWLY raising the temperature.
Is this the same Europe that to this day has countries with governments that make a hobby of killing people ?
You mean putting people in the death row ? Last time I checked USA was the latest western country to be so backward that you can legaly execute people.
"America is unique in that it is the only country that went that went from barbarism to decadence without going thru civilisation". Oscar Wilde
Do a search for "The battle of Athens", you'll see that in the USA people have used the second amendment right to vote to protect the right to vote.
http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm
http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
Have a look for yourself.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I love it when people form political opinions based on watching Red Dawn 15 times as a teenager. Yeah, lets plan all our laws around the premise that we will someday be occupied by a foreign enemy. How about mandatory commando training for all teenagers, or add a bomb building chapter to our chemistry text books?
How safe would you feel knowing that your missiles won't stop a tiny bullet? How long would such an occupation last? Are you 'macho' enough to be a member of the occupation force?
An excellent point. The last time the US military went up against an armed population that wanted them to leave, the military lost.
Ultimatly, the problem was that the gun could be anywhere at any time. Tanks, missiles, and airpower are useless against that unless the goal is scorched earth.
Note, "leaders" that emerged from otherwise political turmoil - not elected leaders in modern democracies. In case you've forgotten, most people consider the U.S. a modern democracy.
I fail to see -- and I doubt you could tell me -- what modern has to do with anything. As to being a democracy, well, no, the U.S. is not a democracy, modern or otherwise, it is a republic. And even if it were a democracy, I fail to see how that would be relevant.
So your list of "bad guys" are all from countries other than the U.S., but your list of "good guys" are all from the country where it is every citizen's right to bear a thermonuclear device as a deterrant against home invasion?
Since my list also included a Brit and an Brit/Indian, and since no country grants the right above, I don't suppose I'll respond to that entirely fallacious question, which doesn't seem to even ask for an answer anyway.
``Nonviolence and cowardice go ill together. I can imagine a fully armed man to be at heart a coward. Possession of arms implies an element of fear, if not cowardice. But true nonviolence is an impossibility withought the possession of unadulterated fearlessness.'' - Mohandas K. Gandhi, 1939
He also said this: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mohandas Gandhi
He recognized that regardless of his feelings of nonviolence, that for the government to strip away the right to arms was a horrible evil.
In other words, to pursue a path a nonviolence involves courage - but to resort to the use of firearms involves fear and cowardice.
Fear, sure. I fear the government. So? Doesn't everyone fear the U.S. government, when it has proven to be so immensely corrupt and untrustworthy?
Yes, the NRA wants you to be fearful.
Non sequitur. I don't care what they want.
You're a coward by your own admission, by agreeing with Gandhi.
Gandhi did not say possession of arms is a show of cowardice. He said he can imagine a "fully armed" man to be a coward (whatever "fully armed" means), but not that he necessarily is. He said possession of arms implies fear, "if not cowardice." He is not saying it implies cowardice, but that it _could_ imply cowardice. Certainly, the people who have fought and died for freedom were not cowards. They were exactly the opposite. They were fearful, of course. But there's nothing wrong with fear.
Heck, there is no need to even state a need for nonviolence without the same kind of fear that drives men to be armed.
One last note: I am not the one with "coward" in my name ...
why not face it???
http://www.pabulum.com/images/ElianSnatch.g if
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Pork is not a verb
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Laws are made to serve people, not the other way around. If a law is hurting the people the law is in the wrong, not the people.
It must be the gun control!
--
Python
Python
You are Canadian, and you haven't heard all this gun control BS before?
Dude...
*EVERY* Gun in Canada now has to be registered. There is also a yearly FEE for each gun to be registered.
The cops now have the right to bust in to your house WITHOUT A WARRANT solely on the smallest suspicion that you have UNREGISTERED weapons in the house.
And the project has gone hundreds of millions of dollars over budget already.
And you said it already. Criminals can get guns anyway.
"stupid lawsuits".
Very good.
Stunning analogy, until you consider that MP3s never killed anyone. Firearms DO. See my post down towards the bottom.
d
-
-
I rather like cows.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
Many of the people against gun control seem to be hell-bent on portraying anyone supporting any kind of gun control as wanting to ban all weapons. But what the woman supporting gun control on the program proposed was not a ban of all (or any) firearms, but what seemed to me to be a reasonable approach (via registration and licensing) to try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are not able to use them safely. There are enough nutcases and irresponsible people out there; shouldn't it be possible to do something to prevent them from getting their hands on firearms, even if it makes it a bit more difficult for legitimate firearms buyers to acquire weapons?
Goddam it! What if I want to kill someody now!!!!!!!!
Hey, you think your house is cool?
>That's the way it should be but in America we have all these people that grew up in large urban war zones and they think if they could just get guns away from people it would solve all of their problems.
:-)
Yeah, there's social issues to work out. But they are NEVER going to be worked out at the barrel of a gun. Saying you can work out these problems with guns on the streets is like saying you can stop prostitution without police. It doesn't compute.
>I was never allowed to use a gun unless supervised until I was mature enough to be trusted with a gun.
And I'm supposed to believe that every stranger on the street with a gun is to be trusted with it? In fact, why the heck should I even trust you with a gun? You give me no reason to (other than that you state you have [in your opinion] proper training.). Maybe if you had a big "The Gov't of xyz has Licensed me a Trained Marksman" sign on you...
>Fear the government that fears your guns.
Ohhh, yeah. Right. I'm sure that if every citized has a shotgun this is going to stop the Country from unleashing biological warfare... (no). You see, any government whose people have enough money to buy lots of firearms has enough money (and sense) to be able to defeat the purpose of them.
And how are you going to get into the underground military bases with your guns? I don't care HOW big your shotgun is, it ISN'T going to matter to 10 ft. of steel.
>Don't ask the government to take away my rights because you don't like guns.
But do ask the government to take away the rights of those with guns that you don't trust. And, to me, that is ANYONE I haven't met personally. Seems to me like this includes you (sorry...
The same way I wouldn't trust an unlicensed/unfit driver on the road, I don't trust ANYONE with a gun that doesn't have a license.
>Everyone that knows history knows that the reason that we have the right to bear arms in the US is because the British tried to deny the colonists that right and this made the American revolution that much harder. That right was given to the people of the united states, as a last resort, in case our government ever became tyranical.
That I understand. And at the time, enough guns and you could ruin the government. But now, what kind of gun is going to destroy the government? You can't do it with a gun. Maybe with a nuclear weapon you could overthrow the government. It worked a little more than 50 years ago... Should people have these to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? How a little about sarin gas and anthrax to sweeten the deal?
I bet you won't find any supporters of giving people the right to bear nuclear arms and biological/chemical weapons for "defense against the government".
Fact is guns do just one thing: KILL.
Give me a use of a gun that isn't designed to KILL or THREATEN TO KILL. Get over the idea of stopping the Queen of England from busting into your living room. If she wanted to do it, she'd be in a popemobile, and your gun will look like a pea shooter in comparison.
Now, if you wanted to support guns, and still have me on your side, try this. I have only come up with one use of guns that is reasonable: For the removal of animals. No, I don't mean killing species to extinction, but I mean reducing the number of animals when necessary. For example, if the population of animals threatens human life, then that population of animals must be destroyed. I believe there was a serious problem with deer carrying lyme disease in parts of the US at one time. The only choice in the matter would be to euthanise these animals, for the sake of the people living in these areas.
Other than that, I have never been able to figure out why a first world country needs arms in the hands of its citizens to happily survive nowadays. And the idea of killing things for sport sickens me. It reminds me of the time when humans were nothing more than animals. Why would anyone want to debase themselves like that?
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Nothing personal. But if you outlaw guns you will increase crime, because I will become a criminal.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
I'm not an idiot, you are putting words into my mouth. I did not intend or imply that Joe Crackhead's weapon was concealed. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. As I said that the weapon could only be taken if a crime is commited. If its concealed, without a permit, thats a crime, hence the weapon would be taken.
The law in DC simply makes it easier to confiscate weapons. Less weapons = less crime.
Spyky
Those figures are fucking bogus. You going to take figures from a pro-gun web site and say there real. I've seen a video that the fucking NRA was showing on Aus. about how the crime rate had gone up thats bullshit. Don't fucking feed the fucking NRA propanganda
A bunch of idiots with guns are not going to be able to overthrow the army of the greatest super power in the world. Even if there are a million idiots. The idiots dont stand a chance against tanks, machine guns, planes, and other high-tech high-damage weapons of the military. So this reason seems absurd.
:)
The Romans at Cannae...
... The British at Isandhlwana...
... The French in Indochina...
... The Americans in Vietnam...
... The Russians in Afghanistan...
... and again in Chechnya...
I'll wait while you go look up the history required to realize that guerilla movements originating from an armed citizenry have this annoying habit of wrecking even the best-trained and equipped armies.
Sigh
Possession of an unregistered firearm is a crime. Possession of a concealed weapon without dispensation is a crime.. If you are pulled over for anything, the cops can and will gleefully take it from you and charge you if the weapon is discovered.
Why does DC have so much crime? I'm guessing people go slowly insane from the massive buildup of politicians..
.sig: Now legally binding!
I'm not sure about WalMart, but there is a interesting story about Meijer:
(WalMart + IGA (in midwest) = Meijer)
Someone bought a 22 cal. in Meijer and went out into the parking lot an committed suicide. The family members sued Meijer for selling a firearm to someone so 'distressed'. I'm not sure how the case ended, but as a result of this case, Meijer now only carries Blackpowder guns and Air (pellet & BB) guns. This is very unfortunate!
Perhaps the MP3 community (I was Napster banned for 1 remix of a Metallica song) should look to the firearms industry for knowledge. The firearms industry has been fighting stupid lawsuits for years.
Like MP3 companies, the firearms companies are being sued so that they accept the responsiblity of individuals who do stupid things with their products. I don't think trading MP3's is stupid, but I agree that an individual should be held responsible when using a product in an illegal manner.
If one conclusion can be made by looking at the firearm industry is that the MP3 companies are going to endure years of litigation until the recording industry can find someone else to blame or another way to make money.
--
"During times of civil war or civil unrest gun owners have the ability to protect themselves from totalitarian governments."
I suspect it just gives more people the means to more quickly join in the civil war on whatever side they think is more just.
"The right to bare arms is all about protecting yourself from the government".
Seems a lot of other people think it is about protecting themselves from other citizens. I get the impression it was originally about running a militia. Can't imagine the framers of the US constitution sitting around saying, hey we had better give them the chance to shoot us if we get a bit uppity.
In the state of Pennsylvania (and several others, but since this is where I live...) if you were issued a concealed weapons permit you didn't have to wait any amount of time or go through a background check before the instant check went into effect.
I have such a permit, they take a picture of you and the state police do a background check. I spent more time picking out a gun that in transferring ownership.
Waiting periods are a joke, for people like me who have at least 1 gun already the "cooling off" period arguement doesn't hold water. If I were to suddenly become unstable and decide to kill people I wouldn't need to go out any buy anything new.
Another proposal that I liked was the blaze orange driver's license. If you're ever convited of a crime that caused you to be prohibited from owning a firearm your driver's license would glow blaze orange when exposed to UV light. That proposal was killed because the bleeding hearts felt that it would be an unconstitutional violation of the rights of felons.
One last piece of trivia, the brady bill didn't contain any provisions which would have prevented James Brady from getting shot.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
And the First Amendment only applies to simple printing presses, literal vocal speech, and the religions that existed in the 18th century. (Peaceable assembling hasn't changed much, though, so you can still do that....)
Chapter 16 of de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, a book analysing the state of American society, published in 1831, is entitled, "Causes which Mitigate the Tyranny of the Majority in the United States". The first cause is, "ABSENCE OF CENTRALIZED ADMINISTRATION. The national majority does not pretend to do everything--Is obliged to employ the town and county magistrates to execute its sovereign will." The passage is so excellent I'm tempted to reproduce more of it here, but you've got the link...
Anyway, I think that the present problem threatens more than gun rights, and out to be seen in context. A large Federal bureaucracy, IMHO, is unnecessary save to enforce laws which pass beyond the proper scope of the Federal Government. And in that connection, the threat to freedom is clear... the Brady Law, the CDA and the Clipper Chip initiative are all obviously beyond the Ennumerated Powers of the Federal Government, and ought not, IMO, to be seen as wholly seperate issues.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
My friend, you have been told a lie. The main reason why only 2% of that 250,000 has been prosecuted is that about ~90% of those people failed the brady check because either
1. Mistaken identity, many of them have a name identical to a felon. Initially denied, but later approved. How many Joe Smiths there are in California?
or
2. Unpaid parking tickets. A bench warrant for unpaid parking tickets is enough to flag you on a background check. Obviously not prime examples of citizenship, but not the "dangerous, violent criminials" that president clinton has made them out to be.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
More importantly, however, people who don't use guns will still find other ways of being violent. That kid might slash his wrists, ingest something toxic or jump off of a tall object; for every case of a person who shoots their spouse, there's another 10-20 cases where someone else chose to beat, stab or run over their spouse. The real problem is that a 12 year old kid is suicidal or that a 30-year marriage will end in homicide. If it's reached that point, people will find some way of being violent. Guns are popular because they're efficient but it's not as if there aren't a million other means available to someone who's decided to harm someone.
The real tragedy is that everyone spends so much time talking about inanimate objects while so attention is given to the actual problems that make people violent.
__
>I hope the rest of the world is able to take care of itself so we gun crazy Americans don't have to go halfway around the world and give our lives for you again.
It took you gun crazy Americans 10 million Jewish lives and 2 years before you gave a sh*t. Don't try and make it look like you won the war. You simply finished it.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Sex, in the wrong hands, is a deadly weapon. Sex, when used by an uninformed person, can transmit STD's that can injure, impair, or kill another person. Sex, when used by an informed person, can be extremely pleasurable and lead to procreation(which is less pleasurable, yet necessary).
Guns, in the wrong hands, are deadly weapons. Guns, when used by an uninformed person, can injure, impair, or kill another person. Guns, when used by an informed person, can be used for sports(which is not as horrible as some people think; do you know how long you can live off of the cost of one bullet?) and recreation(popping off a few rounds at the range is very relaxing).
Yet, with sex, we have a massive information campaign to make people understand. Guns, which are just as deadly and hurtful, are supressed and hidden. Why do you think kids kill other kids with guns? Because they're malicious? Because guns are bad? No, because they can use them and they don't understand them.
If people do not understand guns, they will never stop killing other people with them. You'll never make the rates go down without making people respect the power that is contained within that barrel.
Um, do you think that firearms are a common site in the states? Its not like they're just scattered about the streets here. You could probably live your whole life here and never see one, except on a police officer.
You're missing the entire point of the Second Amendment. Its to keep the government in line. (not invoking Godwin, as I'm not calling anyone a Nazi) - That's why Hitler's first acts were to disarm (especially Jews) the citizenry.
Reread your history book first. Guns were pretty common around Europe before WWII, especially since most people were still living in the countryside and kept at least a gun for hunting. If WWII proved something, it is that a "well regulated militia" with a bunch of hunting gun is no match to a well armed and organised army with tanks, fighters and submarines. If you believe your 2nd amendment protects you from invasions and dictatorship, then you are not living in this century. Wars are fought with cruise missiles, not G-lock.
Are you a vegetarian? If not. SOMEBODY had to kill your fish/chicken/beef/goat/lamb/whatever.
No I'm not a vegetarian - but those animals were killed because it is a necessity. I hope the guys who kill cows don't do it for fun - or they are certainly very sick. I certainly like meat, but I prefer that the animal who made it is killed in the fastest, most painless way as possible. Inflicting pain and death shouldn't be fun.
They think we're barbarians, and we're STILL helping them.
Well it has been over 20 years than European nation demand the removal of US base (except for France because they kicked Nato out of there quickly and built their own nukes and army). The US governement want the world to believe they provide "military help" when they are merely using their military power to protect their own interest (coffee and bananas in south America, petrol in middle east, cheap manufacturing in Asia, etc...). The US has NEVER helped any foreign country out of generosity (Koweit = petrol, Vietnam = self-defence against USSR, WWII : they entered only after Japanese attacked directly a US territory, but had no problem with Hitler politic before that, etc...)
As soon as I cross the border into Washington about 5k south of the border there is a gun shop. Its out in the middle of no where, and its the only shop along this stretch of highway. Its a bit wierd I must say, I have only seen one gun store in Canada, and this was in downtown Montreal when I lived in Quebec. When I was in the Seattle area I saw a few gun stores, and it really was a shock. It's something you just don't see here. I mean you see a few rifles and shotguns at the Canadian Tire stores, but that is about it.
The same thing goes for England. I have been to England numerous times and never have I seen a gun store.
It's just a matter of perspective I guess. A different culture produces a different environment. The gun stores are just something that I notice whenever I visit the US.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
So the lion share of gun crime is being conducted by, and perpetrated against criminals. Hardly a terrible swath of violence aimed at innocents. Furthermore, millions of crimes are prevented every year by lawful gun owners in the USA.
--
Python
Python
No, gun dealers will not make sales because they're afraid that if they do, they'll get their doors kicked in by HK weilding BATF agents for a surprise inspection.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Warsaw Ghetto during WWII. Well-armed with ILLEGAL weapons. The defendents of the Ghetto cost the killers dearly. Too bad the other killers further to the East waited before advancing on the killers attacking the Ghetto.
Events in the USA in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Specifically the internment of US Citizens from Japan. Too bad the Supreme Court ruled that it was CONSTITUTIONAL to do such a thing (was someone saying 'It could never happen in the good ole USA'???)
American Indians - poorly armed
US Calvery - better armed
Conclusion???
Malcolm X and formation of "hunting clubs" in response to racist violence in law-abiding post WWII USA
Will a racist be more or less likely to burn a cross on your front lawn if s/he knows you are a rabid, foaming at the mouth gun nut?
Breaking and Entering crimes at night decline in in Los Angeles during Summer 1985 due to the large number of fearful homeowners purchasing firearms in response to the "Night Stalker" (???). The normal crooks feared to commit the night time burgalry due to the greater number of trigger happy homeowners.
"Maintain a questioning attitude"
I believe Juanita
Not a big deal here. I have a progressive reloader. I could pop out about 1000 bullets per hour.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
it is http://www.pabulum.com/images/ElianSnatch.gif
Pork is not a verb
Sometimes shit happens. Why does most of the gun related shit seem to happen here to us in the USA? Could easy unmonitored access to firearms have *anything* to do with it?
If violence brought upon unarmed innocent persons is acceptable in the name of perceived safety, then I submit that it is equally acceptable for everyone to be armed in the name of proven safety.
You argue that you have a right to take away my means of self defense in the name of your perceived self defense. If my self defense isn't important, and we are equals, than your defense is moot, and you have no latitude to deny me my right to self protection.
Sometimes, shit does happen. Would you rather the shit happened to some asshole thug, or an innocent victim?
These stastical fallacies are similar to those that claim air travel is very safe compared with cars. True, but if you are not young, drunk and driving a Trans-Am, the airplane statistics are less compelleing. Or that shark attack is very rare. Rare for the population as a whole, but if you surf every day in shark-infested waters, your milage may vary.
The U.S. contains sub-populations that are at very high risk of being shot (or doing the shooting). I don't have the stats at hand but it would be a sucker-bet that most shooters are felons who posses their guns illegally. So more laws will do... what? Better enforcement and putting habitual criminals in jail for a long time is the only proven answer.
I wrote parts of this stuff
Are you a strict vegetarian? Someone had to kill that hamburger you just ate.
Sure - but the cow wasn't shot and hunted for hours before it died. Livestock is (at least over here) killed quickly and as painless as possible.
Killing smaller animals is the natural order of things. Cats eat mice and birds alligators eat almost anything, etc etc.
Sure - but cats don't hunt with Uzis and M16. If you wanna hunt with your barehands I'm ok with that. Any tools you use to hunt is "cheating" (much like equiping dears with an auto-aiming mini-gun would make hunting less fun for you).
I'm not afraid of a tool, which is exactly what a gun is.
A tool whose only purpose is killing.
Someone stabs you with a knife, should all knives and anything remotely pointy be outlawed ?
Knives are not killing devices. You can at least find several non-lethal use of knives. But guns can only be used for killings (or shooting empty bottles of beer, but I fail to see the practical use of it). Also killing 45 people in a McDonald is not as easy with a knive as it is with an Uzi.
No you punish the person not the instrument.
Of course. But I'd rather have to punish someone for stabing me with a knive rather than shooting me with a AK-47. My chances of survival are much better with knives.
You said "The best way to get shot is to pull out a gun." Nice bromide. Prove it with numbers.
What i think is insane is the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that EVERY human has a dark side. We are a mix of both good and evil.
And what makes as human is that YES - we can try do to the good and inhibit our own dark side. Putting a killing device into everybody hands is certainly not the best way to keep the good side winning.
Oh, and if i remember correctly, the 2 most horrific and horrible wars occured in Europe.
Of course - because US always organise its war overseas. Vietnam, Irak, Kosovo, Korea, etc...
Lets not forget that Christianity, probably the most popular religion in the world, has at its heart that man IS evil, period.
Own of the most perverted religion too BTW. I don't see why I should be responsible for Adam and Eves dark sides, it's not my problem. I take care of my own dark side, thank you, and I never needed a gun for that.
HA.
Try to buy a gun and use the word militia.
You will be a guest at Elain Gonzales new home in no time...
Or end up with a Vince Foster hairdo...
"Don't try to confuse the issue with half truths and gorilla dust."
Bill McNeal (Phil Hartman)
Yes, in canada guns do have to be registered. We operate differently than the US. Quite differently.
As for when the last time we hat a totalitarian government to defend ourselves against... that's not the point at all. The point is, if we don't have the right to keep arms, then when we DO have a totalitarian government to defend against, we will be powerless to defend.
Remember, government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people. When government crosses that line, and starts acting as a way to rule the people, the people have a right to stand up to it.
You're making coherent and cogent points. Even if the 'popular opinion' of moderation judges you wrong, your posts deserve to be counted. Moderation has sucked so badly lately that I regularly see good stuff at -1.
/. peers deserve to know what kind of person is behind the moniker. To do any differently would be dishonest. Shit, I even troll as myself!
/. posters as peers? Another sign I've been spending too much time here..
I think of it as a kind of 'this is who I am'. Your
Did I just refer to
.sig: Now legally binding!
Just like the I Love You worm was not caused by Outlook. Stupid users perpetuated the worm, just like stupid gun users are responsible for killing others.
(semi-sarcastic, I think, although I find it hard to tell when I'm being due growing up in our society)
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
First we go to the topic of gun control which is always a big winner, then we take the US is the WORLD/US vs. WORLD subject. A dobbelt flamebait in on article, great job. I must say I admire your sence of humor ;)
Will work for bandwidth!
I'm also from Canada, and new gun purchases now have to be registered in this country. Current gun owners have a year or two to get registered. Regardless of actual weapon registration, one has to have a FAC (Firearms Acquisitions Certificate) in this country to own/use a firearm. It's a good bet that the people with a FAC are the people with guns.
Has there ever been a war that wasn't fought for lack of weaponry, though? In a civil war, if I am fighting the government, I will get a gun and chances are that I won't tell the government about it. The government will know about all registered guns from before the war began, but I would imagine that the majority of the weapons used to fight the war would be acquired after the war began. Not only does the general public not keep a major armoury in their basements, a lot of the weapons necessary for a modern war are currently illegal, and if you've got 'em, you'd better hope that the government doesn't know about it.
As far as I see it, the only argument against gun registration that has any substance is that the government will know where to collect the guns. I'm as rabid and paranoid as the rest of you, but the benefits of gun registration outweigh the risks. If the Canadian government is overrun by... oh... say... right-wing hicks from Alberta, and imposes a totalitarian system, I'll find all the weapons I need.
B
You've got an account!! Post using it!
Please?
.sig: Now legally binding!
Statistics(and common sense) clearly shows that a NO guns policy means that less people get killed :-) ).
I don't understand why USA must still have this policy?(still cowboys are we
The other tricks that have been used in anti-gun states and localities are:
1. Require the purchaser to have taken a gun safety course that is only offered by the state government. Then make sure that the gun safety courses are rarely scheduled and are made as inconvenient as possible.
2. Accept the paperwork from the purchaser and drop it in the nearest trash can. If the purchaser objects, tell her to fuck off and hire a lawyer if she doesn't like it. A variation on this theme is to always be "out of stock" on the necessary forms.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Just try,buttmunch.Try at 157 Groundhog Hollow in Hardburly.Hillbilly#1 will be waiting.(Do you just hate an idiot that has to hide behind a fake name just to rile a feller?) I'm not native to the mountains,but I was raised here.(I was a navy brat,born on base in San Diego.)My father was a native of Eastern Ky,descended from both sides of the Hatfield-McCoy feud.He was honorably discharged less than 2 weeks later.We came here and this is home.That's why I have the attitude that I do. If you don't like it,tough.I don't care.(In case the rest of the Slashdotters are wondering,the Hardburly Booger Man handle is my actual CB handle that I have used since I was 8 years old,and I just hit 42.)
Geek Hillbilly
If you BUY a FUCKING car, then you at least have to FUCKING admit the possibility that you are going to run someone over.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
but doesn't Washington DC have one of the highest murder rates in the United States? I don't know where I heard that, but it certainly may be wrong, does anyone have some statistics?
Don't be mean or my friend Oog will smash your head
You make it sound as if there are two groups of people in the world: law-abiding citizens and criminals, and never the twain shall meet.
Has there never been a person cross from one category to the other?
B
What a way to reduce crime and stop the bloodshed!" Perhaps one day the entire world will be as safe as Washington, D.C. and other officially disarmed zones.
Maybe you should try and get a gun in europe (or asia). You probebly can't. And, well, that IS the rest of the world! (Which has a lot lesser crimes with guns involede than the US and DC also.)
Will work for bandwidth!
However if the majority is unarmed and some small fanatic group gets an itch to take power (by force) this would not be a good situation
An interesting take on this is The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, where fundies take over the US and force women into christian slavery. I'm more afraid of Scientologists personally, but I'd be privileged to pop a cap in the ass of any fringe whacko trying to mess with my liberty..
Live free or die,
Your Working Boy,
Soldiers in our military consider the Constitution to be more important than whatever government is currently in power.
Please note this: it's one of the rarest things in the history of mankind. I doubt anyone could name 5 other armies which served the people explicitly and provably, over some warlord or particular monarch.
The civilian control of the military, demonstrated decisively by Harry Truman in the sacking of MacArthur (a very unpopular decision at the time), is one of the things that makes America great.
Your Working Boy,
"Soap box, Ballot box, Ammunition box; use in that order."
.sig.
Indeed, the framers intended for the citizenry to be the last, best check against a tyrannical government. Their other writings reflect this fact irrefutably. There have been Supreme Court cases decided on the "original intent" of the framers of our Constitution.
These old, dead, slave-owning white guys knew what they were about. The fact that they were "angry white males" (you're damned right they were angry - they just won their independence from a tyranny), and "slave owners" (the social and economic thought of the day was that these things were necessary to the maintenance of a working farm - whether or not that is or was true is quite irrelevant) is simply a moot point.
The Constitution is not about "political correctness". There is no guarantee therein that you should be able to live your life without being offended by someone else's words. In fact, the First Amendment guarantees you and me and everyone else the RIGHT to speak our minds (but gives us no guarantee that anyone will listen).
It is unfortunate that the Second Amendment, which so clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"", was not worded in such a way that it is clear even to those who would deprive us of that right (first) today. Had I the ability to travel back in time, I would have pushed for clarification of that clause.
It is more unfortunate, however, that people in modern America have chosen, blindly, to give away their rights and liberties to obtain a measure of temporary safety. Mr. Franklin has a wonderful quote to this effect, and my reply to him is in my
It is a fact that governments around the world have killed 170 million of their own citizens in the twentieth century. This spans from Germany to the USSR to Cambodia. Had the U.S. not been fortunate enough to have a string of major victories while island-hopping in the Pacific Ocean during World War II, how long do you think it would have taken for there to be an overwhelming outcry for our government to "solve the Japanese problem"? Those already interred would have been utterly defenseless, and those not yet confined may have at least had a chance to escape, certainly aided by right-minded Other-Than-Japanese American citizens.
America is not immune from a tyrannical government. Hitler was the duly-elected legal Chancellor of Germany, remember.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
hunting, shooting indians, and defending against foreign invasion are not the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment--shooting our police and politicians are. the real purpose of gun ownership is so that something is backing up our sovereignty. without them, there is no reason why elections will ever happen again.
Yes, and Israel is much *more* heavily armed, and safer still.
As is Switzerland.
Your Working Boy,
After reading many of the posts here, I get the distinct feeling that many people are anticipating (not exact looking forward to it though) a Second American Revolution. I can't quite blame them though, with the whole Y2K thing going bust, everyone is wondering what "the next big thing" is going to be.
This is a smart enough audience to realize that once our beloved stock market finally comes to a grinding halt (it's supposed to happen, just like natural weather patterns predict hurricanes in the Summer), the US in particular is going to be in for a very rude awakening. For 10 or so years now, our government has been making laws that won't really affect us (while we enjoy the good times). But when the good times end, my guess is that we are going to get to see the "True Colors" of our goverment.
My conservative guess is that I will see it within my life-time (50-70 years, depending on whether they tax cigarettes out of existence). My more aggressive guess is 5-10 years after the next recession digs in (and it will be a long one, there are going to be so many companies that were driving along in the red during the good times that even the ones in black will plummet because of a micro-domino effect).
So what does this have to do with all you folks in Europe and *ahem* other NATO allies? The only thing I ask of you is not to help our government regain its dictatorship. We Americans have never lost a war fought on our own soil (even against our own government), and we won't lose the next one.
In light of my opinions and statements above, I just want to say that I'm not a "looney" or a "fear-monger" or some kind of "doomsday-sayer". I'm simply pointing out the obvious agenda that our government has (and any government for that matter, until someone figures out how to do it right), that agenda is to become large and tell it citizens how to live their lives, regardless of popular opinion.
BTW, I'll be part of the Revolution, but only after I'm sure that it's real...
Hammer of Truth
I'd rather be shot than stabbed.
(to paraphrase a classic)
"He's going to be CRUCIFIED!"
"eh. Could be worse."
Your Working Boy,
Since that time, it's become almost a weekly event reading of yet another massacre in the United States.
With nearly 300 million people, I'm surprised it doesn't happen _more_ often.. And I wonder how gun deaths compare in quantity to deaths by allergic reaction to food/bees/etc, pollution, etc. I wonder how many deaths are a byproduct of liberty, and what the cost would be if we decided to relinquish that liberty?
And, I also wonder, if the US wasn't the world's policeman (come on Europeans and Canadians, as much as you like to deny it, when it comes to geopolitical heavy lifting we are your daddy. Whenever we police you gripe, and when we leave it to you you fuck it up and blame us for staying out! Make up your minds!) would there be enough guaranteed security for other western countries to put 'enlightened' measures in place?
I tend to think that Euro/Canadian 'civilization' is bought and paid for by American blood on a daily basis, since we remain the arsenal and backbone of democracy we relieve you of the need to arm, and the costs of arming yourselves... Americans are the Morlocks of global politics... Be glad we're apathetic to the point of not noticing the money and effort we're pouring into foreign defense, and remember the difference between American isolationism (two world wars with hundreds of millions dead) and interventionism (brush fires with not nearly the same body count)..
Your Working Boy,
To read more, goto the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's page on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising which is coincidently located in Washington, DC.
Question for the thinking readers of Slashdot: How many of those mothers in DC will visit this memorial to those murdered by a very "civilized" society that had accidentally been taken over by a madman?
Please also visit one of many American concentration camps (e.g. Manzanar) or do a Yahoo! search.
Perhaps some high school students in Colorado should have remembered their Dune ... "fear is a mind killer" and rushed the two jerks. The high school students who survived are little better than those who survived another far worse terror sixty years ago ... SHEEP (and I don't mean the electric variety)
"Maintain a questioning attitude"
I believe Juanita
Swiss law on war materials regulates "weapons capable of firing in bursts". Individual cantons have their own restrictions.
Many Swiss army reservists are authorized to keep their issued assault rifle at home. Such soldiers have completed their initial training, undergo (at least) annual training, and are subject to military discipline with regard to military weapons. When their term in the reserves expires, the weapons are turned in.
Articles like this give the distinct impression of a close proximity of gun proliferation advocates and the free software community in the US. Speaking strictly for myself I am very uncomfortable with this idea.
Did you really think only criminals were being targeted?
Elian
Pork is not a verb
The USA and Canada are young - don't think it can't happen here.
With McCarthy in the fifties, it almost _did_ happen here.. I only hope my pop would have stood firm and blown some of the McCarthyites away if it came to it, even at the expense of not having been conceived 15 or so years later...
Your Working Boy,
You can see for yourself the results of victim disarmament: crime goes up. Should that surprise anyone?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I agree with you 100% and suggest you purchase landmines, grenades, armor piercing rounds, saw your shotgun and whatever else makes you feel safer
Quite a quaint ad hominem arguement. Anything else you would like to paint me as?
Meanwhile, I will just try to avoid you since what makes me feel safer is avoiding dangerous situations and people able to do me great harm.
I take it you avoid automobiles since you are much more likely to be greatly harmed by them than by a firearm. Not only is there ample emperical evidence to support this assertion (40,000 Americans dying annually in car crashes versus about 11,000 dying annually by firearms, and about half of those shouldn't count because they are suicides) but good theory: general use of a motor vehicle is dangerous, while general use of a firearm is relatively safe because the firearm spends 90% of its time sitting in a holster.
Don't be swayed by sensationalism in the media, guns aren't evil.
Calm down, big guy; take a joke as it was intended. I'm living in Chicago, where they won't even allow the sale of handguns, much less armor-piercing shells. Back home, I've got an old Walther P-38, and I'm glad to say I've never needed more. Hell, I like Kentucky (which I can't say for all too many states in the Union), and still have a friend living down near Lexington; you try getting a decent freakin' mint julep up here.
Sorry to hear about the break-in. Hope nobody got hurt.
"Oh Bother", said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh."
I support the right to keep and arm bears! Give them a sporting chance!
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I had to laugh when I read this. Funny you should pick out an example which has cause to make many Libertarians much more angry than gun control. It was under FDR's threat of court-packing that the Supreme Court essentially decided to make the Commerce Clause so expansive that the 10th Amendment didn't overturn a single Federal law (including the Brady Act) for the next 60 years. Closing the banks (like just about every part of the New Deal) was unconstitutional, and a vicious blow against freedom. Besides, IMHO, that it didn't work.
FDR's administration can be summed up by quoting him: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation."
Suffice it to say, I'm not persuaded. :-) I would sooner we suspend all gun laws, while we give ourselves a chance to discuss the matter. But I appreciate the note of openness; tolerance for people with different views is hugely important. I'm all for calm dialogue.
It's called direct democracy, and there's no better form of government.
Again, I could scarcely disagree more. That the majority of people hold a view does not make it right. If a democracy chooses not to respect the rights of the minority, I don't think there are many worse forms of government. A constitutionally limited goverment for me, thank you.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
There is something further. I know this is an old thread but I would like to make this point. Sawed off shotguns were used in World War II by the french to clear trenchs. The failure of Miller's attorneys to bring up this point of evidence is the main reason that the sawed off shotgun was not granted the "military use" status and is not protected.
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
granted, my experiences and views are far from those at the center of the croud, but most of them i try not to simply inherit, and instead contemplate [at least the most crucial values] extensively before solidifying. i am personally opposed to guns. they are a violent means of action, reaching back to barbaric animal-like tendencies our society feels so proud to be shedding. i entirely recognize the hunting aspect, but the "take your kids hunting, so you don't have to hunt for your kids" bumpersticker seems a litle misguided since i am an animal rights activist, but nevertheless well meant.
the second ammendment is probably the most controversial among the bill o' rights. my understanding is basically that the bill was written at a very different time with intentions that no longer apply to our lives [supermarkets, american indian reservations, and border guards eliminated a majority of uses for guns], and it also is in no way an end-all be-all [protection of private property is no longer all we care about, and women's and black's rights were never mentioned.]
concerning protecting ourselves from our government/ securing our free state against bad guys, id like to note that in a representative democracy, the governing system we are coming closer to, the governed people are their own government. majority tyranny is no longer the threat. the laws will reflect what the most people affected by them want. diplomacy is in, and its not a fad; the need to go out and hurt someone for what they think not only can and is being avoided, but counteracts any sort of progress the world has made for happiness and survival.
now, the issue everyone seems to like to point to is "crackhead joe", the guy who has a gun, and needs to be regulated but may never be. even though these people exist, and they exist because it is possible for people with clean records to buy multiple guns and resell them, joe is not making news lately. the government doesnt give a damn about joe when they talk about locks and operator recognition systems; everybody knows that adults have always shot other adults. the issue here is children. i have none, and am not even at risk of coming down with a case of them, but i do what i can to make sure existing children live, and live well.
living in west michigan, i am immersed in a single party political system, along with a severely alligned belief system [did i say alligned? alligned opposite myself, that is.] we have a terribly frequent rate of kids being suspended/ expelled for reasons from bringing guns to school to kindergardeners playing cops 'n' robbers at recess. rarely are these kids being supplied with weapons from their gangs [dutch-reformed gangs, of course], nor are they hiring their grandma to go buy a new one. these guns always come from their parents' gun cabinet or sock drawer, taken right after the church potluck, and right before volunteering for national honor society. it isnt like these parents are considered neglectful - they're sure their kids don't know where the gun is, or that they know not to play with it. endless documentation shows that children, no matter how rigorously trained in gun safety, always want to play with them. and any time a gun is picked up, the opportunity for firing, most likely causing an accident, is too likely.
so if hunting is your life, i dont mean to deprive you of enjoyment. i never will accept the argument "i like to hunt with a hand gun." i like to chop vegetables with a 15' tall guillotine, but i dont argue when someone says its misuse. and if you know for a fact that youll never shoot someone/thing you didnt mean to at the time or when you werent as mad, and that no one else will ever get ahold of your gun and do the same thing, then chances are it isnt really a gun.
guns are for people that dont know how to use swords or fists.
I agree with the fact that most people shouldn't own guns because of the dangerous consequences, however I don't think we should deny anyone the right to own a gun. With right comes responsibility, those who can't handle the responsibility of gun ownership should seriously consider not owning a gun. I play paintball, but I don't consider myself gun savy and wouldn't ever consider owning a gun, there are too many dangers involved.
For protection against criminals we have the police. They carry weapons and are paid to do so.
The problem is that I don't think the majority of people in the US trust the police. Most people believe that police forces in general have become too corrupt.
"Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know."
-- Ernest Hemingway
As much as I like to argue for the posession of guns.. we do seem much saner up here.
People *do* own guns, and even with our new gun registration laws.. many many people can still go out and buy guns.
And how often in Canada do people get shot in a holdup? Aside from the odd armored truck heist.. never..
Not necessarily; it's a natural right (IMHO), not a natural desire. The obvious difference is, a significant portion of Americans want to bear arms, which makes it an issue of liberty.
Switzerland is arguably the most democratic state on Earth, its laws being the clear expression, for the better or for the worse, of the will of the people
Quite true, from my understanding of their government. The US were founded by people who dreaded such a system... "Tyranny of the Majority" was the phrase of the time. And that, in a sense, is the source of the incessant argument: the sense of "I don't give a damn what most people want, I have rights!"
This conflict sits deep below many of America's hot-button issues: Libertarianism vs. Majoritarianism. So deep that most people aren't really cognizant of it. But, stuffing my opinion in a nutshell, that's why Americans don't simply do something about this, one way or the other.
But is it prudent to let people from way back in the XVIIIth century, be they the Founding Fathers of the nation, make decisions on such contemporary problems as modern criminality?
Unquestionably, no. But that's not how many of us see the matter. I, for instance, see the US Constitution as a far finer expression of my own views on government than anything with which we'd be likely to replace it.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
I'm 26 and I've never, ever, seen a handgun in real life. In fact, that vast majority of Canadians can say the same..
Well, I'm 27 and I live (and grew up in) Vermont, which has among the most libertarian gun policy in the US. You don't even need to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun here. Our crime rates are quite low, although I do not have any statistics to cite.
As a membor of a minority which is not well represented in the police, and actively excluded from the military, I am not about to support handing those two forces a monopoly on gun ownership. If I am attacked on the street by a bigoted thug I would prefer to be able to defend myself rather then rely solely on a police force which may be hostle to me.
Furthermore, the phrase "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" is pretty hard to misinterpret, and I think it is much more dangerous to go tinkering around with the Bill Of Rights then it is to have a few guns around.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
Last comment on this subject.I do not subscribe to popular culture,either.I rarely even turn on a tv.Got better things to do.(Building a new Linux system,for instance.Making a decent living doing this.) I discount the accusation by another unknown idiot that accused me of molesting my children as the ravings of head-up-his-ass self-rightous asshole. Saying this on a forum is one thing.Say it to my face could have much different results.
Geek Hillbilly
why not face it???
ElianSnatch
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Pork is not a verb
Guns can and do shoot projectiles that can kill a person, but by and large they are not used for that purpose. Here's an example to help you understand. Picture a playground full of schoolchildren. A guy with a big ass four wheel drive plows through the fence and kills several children. People like you demand that all four wheel drives be outlawed. Now do you understand? Or do I have to use more capital letters?
By the way, the incident occurred in California, in the late nineteen eighties, and yes, for a short while, the politicians and brilliant people like you proposed outlawing four wheel drive vehicles similar to the model the wacko drove.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Although many arguments can be made that guns cause crime, or stop crime; that the Second Amendment should let us have all we want, or only certain ones, or whatever; much of the gun legislation (and anti-gun sentiment) has been due to an apparent rise of viloent crime in the country recently... Things like the Columbine shootings, Postal Workers... going postal... and other things... Does anyone know if this happened in the 50s too and we didn't know about it? Because my parents (far from statistics; anybody have some?) said when they were kids, people had guns, they even had gun clubs at school, and yet nobody ever got shot.
If this is true, than, why do we suddenly see all this new violence now? It's not that the new guns are any more lethal than those of before. Why do we need gun control at all? Why weren't there school shootings in the 50s? Perhaps the areas where gun crime is worse - the inner-city ghettoes - was there as much violence there then as now? What has changed, to cause all this extra crime, that cause laws like the Brady Bill to be passed? Or rather, are people just more aware of it now because of mass-media hype?
I'm anti-gun control, personally. But I'm wondering, how this country got by for 200 years without any gun control laws, and now they seem necessary. If violence really has gone up... Guns haven't gotten better or more plentiful in the past 20 years... So what IS it then? Drugs? A shift away from family values? Sharpening class divide? I'd really like to know.
Hear! Hear!
Prisoners and Slaves are not permitted to own guns.
Think on that for a while.
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
Fifty million?
Try nearly Two Hundred Forty Million. There are between Sixty-Five and Eighty Million (as of 1994 in previous link) legal gun owners in the USA. Nearly four million firearms were sold in 1995 alone.
The math is left as an exercise for the reader.
That's why states require that car owners are properly aware of how to safely operate their cars, through written and practical (i.e. driving) tests. That's a hell of a lot more than you can say for gun owners!
Yes, damn straight.
Carl Sagan mentions this in "The demon haunted world" (I lent it out again, don't have the exact stats mentioned thierin).
He compares the percentage of deaths via firearms in Vancouver BC Canada to Seattle WA USA. These cities are separated by approximatly 200 KM IIRC.
The difference in the death toll due to firearms is insane.
No, No I DONT have the exact figures, like I said I lent the book out. It is an anstonishing read. -- I just said that to defray the inevitable flurry of pro-gun ownership follow up posts.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I think they would also be amazed at some of the rights we have gained (for example, the right to not be enslaved, and the right for pretty much everyone over 18 to vote).
--
The shareholder is always right.
Personally, I don't like the idea of the government requiring registration of anything that may conflict with my rights. And I am downright pissed at the expansion of police powers recently in regard to search and seizure and the electronic medium. In the legal sense, I am not sure that the government cannot require registration. The balance is always government interest (usually couched in administration or protecting the public terms) vs. the rights of the individual or groups. For example, a church must register to get tax-exempt status and not all religions can gain such status. It was deemed that this did not interfere with the right of freedom of religion. In free speech cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech is so essential to our form of government that they have to have a hugely compelling reason (my words, not theirs - see findlaw.com's annotated constitution for rulings) to abridge that right. I think they may have even dealt with the issue of registering printing presses but I can't remember. In any case, the second ammendment has been so little argued in Supreme Court cases that it is unclear how the court feels about that right.
On our long-overdue bloody geek overthrow of the corporatist, closed-source system! My chess club is still only half armed :-(
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
---
And when was the last time we had a totalitarian government we had to defend ourselves from in either Canada or the US?
---
It doesn't happen out of the blue. It happens in steps.
The USA and Canada are young - don't think it can't happen here.
And no, I'm not a right-wing gun nut or anything. I've read plenty of history on how complacency leads to bad things, though...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Anybody remember Red Dawn, one of the best cold war paranoia movies of all time?
As soon as the commies take over Patrick Swayze's home town, they look up the local gun registration records, and use them to track down all of the gun owners. They get a chuckle out of how easy it was, thanks to the U.S.'s own bureacracy. I don't know if it actually would be that easy, but it's food for thought.
MSK
... Seems like the US keeps forgetting there is a world outside...
... most european countries have *very* restricted guncontrol. But manage to keep a low crimerate (compared to US) anyway! How is that possible.
Personally I find it *very* scary the "natural" approach to guns many slashdort-readers seems to. Something as nescesary as milk and bread.
Something as deadly shouldn't be freely available. If I were gonna be robbed on the street, I'd prefer to be threadened by a fist instead of a gun up my nose, which could easily go off.
But in a world where everyone has access to a gun, a robber would expect you to cary a gun and then you *will* be faced with a gun up your nose... and the tension between you might make it go off...
Glad I live in Europe.... can walk the streets at night without fear for my life!
There is *nothing* naturally about guns... just horror!
Bjarne
>Can't imagine the framers of the US constitution
>sitting around saying, hey we had better give
>them the chance to shoot us if we get a bit
>uppity.
Actually, that's the exact reason they put it in
there. Yes it was for the militia but the
militia's job was as the final check on a
tyrranical federal government or invading army.
So yes, it was to shoot them if they got a bit
uppity...
(Yes I work for NSI. No I don't pretend to speak for them since they don't pretend to speak for me.)
Is the target a member of The Party?
--
The shareholder is always right.
The FBI firearm background check system is an isolated and very limited snapshot of their normal database query space. Due to sheer volume, they employ untrained civilians to do the searches and were totally unwilling to risk any liability due to unauthorized disclosure.
LIEN, CASV and CPOL are working just fine.
I personally don't give a big rat's ass what the morons in DC try.NONE of my personal stash are registered and will never be. Folks here have a history of extreme distrust of any government agency.Besides,having the guns the way I do have saved my family recently from a breakin by a crackhead. Like I said,I can buy a weapon anywhere,anytime.legal or not. Here is an idea.Arm everyone.Crooks will behave then.(or get blown away if not.)Sounds like the wild west? Sure it does.But the myth of the gun controllers have been proven not to work.(Check Washington DC,New York City,Chicago,ect.where highly restricting gun laws exists)Who has the guns there?Yep,the crooks do. Most everyone here has at least a decent shotgun. I got lucky,with a father who was a cop and taught me from an early age what a gun(rifle,shotgun,pistol-take your pick)can do. I pack a S&W .357 with armor piercing shells 99% of the time.(Rattlesnakes are a daily occurance since I live out in the county.The sales of those types of shells where halted a few years ago,prompting me to buy every box advailable before the supply dried up.)If I have have to use a gun,I want to make DAMN sure that what(or who) is not going to get up again.Sheep,nope don't think so.Just a dumb hillbilly(or briar as the people from up north call us)who can use common sense,unlike some other folks I have heard of.
Geek Hillbilly
He's loaded the cops up with guns and now they do the bulk of the killling in NYC. And are shooting people who are unarmed!!!!! I am less worried of being hassled by criminals than the gunslinging cops and the worst part is that they are generally coke snorting, bribe-taking (in order to maintain their "cover")undercover cops. The difference between these guys and the alleged bad guys is???????I bet that they don't need to worry about no waiting period.....
Hey, you think your house is cool?
Most slashdotters from my experience seem to lean towards an extreme libetarin philosophy. There are two arguments put forward by anti-gun-control groups. The first involves the fact that bill of rights explicitly lists it as an unalienable right. However if we examine the context of the particular ammendemant, its quite obvious to realize the context does not apply. A bunch of idiots with guns are not going to be able to overthrow the army of the greatest super power in the world. Even if there are a million idiots. The idiots dont stand a chance against tanks, machine guns, planes, and other high-tech high-damage weapons of the military. So this reason seems absurd. The second reason brought forward by these people is that the government should have limmited control over our lives (e.g. we shoudl be as free as possible). Well, the role of laws are to balance the need of the individual vs. the need of society. If gun-control really does lower crime then it should be more stringently enacted. Suggestting that we should not protect society when it is clear we shoudl, is ridiculous and definitely does not agree with the majority of people. We already have many laws that suttely violate the principle of absolute liberty (e.g. enforced eqaulity laws, deceny laws, numerous ordinaces, just to name a few). So this would not be the first time we put the need of society over the need of the individual as some would suggest. Thus, my opinion is if gun-control really does significantly lower crime than it should be encated more rigorously. If it doesn't, then it is pointless. But it is my opinion that this is the point that should be argued, not the points of discussions mentioned above (which seem to be the ones most focus on).
"If you BUY a FUCKING handgun, then you at least have to FUCKING admit the possibility that you are going to shoot someone"
he didn't say he wasn't admitting it, but you can't assume every gun will be used to shoot someone. I'm in a pistol league. I shoot twice a week. Will I ever shoot anyone? probably not. You're assuming every gun will be used for something illegal. Far from the truth.
If you want more bios on Federal judges, by all means--go on and read their bios. Almost all of them have bios available on the Web. You'll find that a great many of them are former beat cops; FBI agents; soldiers (oftentimes from Special Warfare branches, like the Rangers and SEALs). Until you actually go and check out their bios, please don't tell me they're unqualified.
I make no claim on whether or not short-barreled shotguns have a purpose in home defense or in military use. Short-barreled shotguns have been used in military service as far back as the Civil War; even farther back, all the way to Major Robert Rogers, if you're willing to accept shotgun-style weapons (blunderbuss, etc.).
However, the defendant in Miller did not introduce those historical facts into the court record. It's very possible that, had Miller been wise enough to introduce those terms, the Court would have decided other than they did.
The Court only determines cases based on the facts presented to them. The burden is not on the judge to be an expert in every respect of every discipline of study; the burden of the judge is to be able to learn quickly, very quickly, and to let all parties at trial educate him/her in the discipline in question.
Look at Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who had no technical experience before the DOJ/MS trial, and how technically astute his Findings of Fact were. Although there were some shortcomings, on the whole he grasped the subject matter very well. This surprised the court commentators to no end, but it came as no surprise to me--I've seen firsthand just how rapaciously judges learn new things.
I'm done debating this subject now; I don't think you're bringing up any new or interesting points here.
I'd rather nobody had guns.
Well, gee whiz, Gomer, I'd rather nobody starved and everyone lived in nice homes by the ocean and ate lobster and never got fat.
Wake up.
There's hundreds of MILLIONS of firearms in the US alone. There's factories around the world making millions of them every year. Part of the ex-soviet method of world destabilization was to give away the blueprints to their AK-47s and churn out millions to give away for free just to fuck with us. We're only reaping the harvest of the cold war. And even if we made firearm ownership illegal tomorrow, even if all the firearms in this country magically vanished, motivated individuals could simply fabricate them anew if they found it too difficult or expensive to import them.
Gun ownership is a tough issue. Don't threaten my liberty so casually by being such a pollyanna.
The furthest I would go would be to mandate gun training before receiving a permit to purchase. Hell, maybe in place of compulsory military service (which is where Swiss (reserves) and Israelis learn to handle guns) offer gun training in secondary schools.. Make guns boring, like sex ed makes sex so dull...
Your Working Boy,
How about doing away with drug laws?
Works for me.
Your Working Boy,
Of course, if the guy standing BEHIND the guy with an Uzi had a gun, he might be able to shoot UZI guy before UZI man kills the rest of the patrons.
Two words: Colin Ferguson.
(though I doubt in NYC anyone would get involved...)
Your Working Boy,
>Of course. But I'd rather have to punish someone for stabbing me with a knife rather than shooting me with a AK-47. My chances of survival are much better with knives.
The only reason that statement is true is because you specified a rifle. Knives are extremely deadly, even compared to handguns. I'd much rather be shot with the average criminal handgun (.32) than stabbed with a 6" knife. (Actually, I'd much rather be able to legally defend myself with the best tool for the job.)
Wrong. I haven't seen the statistics, so perhaps people get shot in holdups less often in Canada, but it does happen.
One sad story I read about: a shopkeeper was standing behind the counter, and a robber just walked in, pulled out a gun, and shot him dead. Ironically, it was a gun shop, but the owner obeyed Canadian law and didn't have a loaded gun for protection.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Let's look at some average (from 1994, sorry a bit dated, but the FBI reports violent crimes are at an all time low) U.S. annual figures for accidental deaths and the analogous "solutions":
50,000 traffic fatalities. Solution; remove the cars?
11,000 falling fatalities. Solution; outlaw stairs?
5,000 drownings. Solution; fill in all the pools?
5,000 buring fatalities. Solution; ban matches, lighters, heaters, cigarettes, and fireplaces?
4,500 fatal poisonings. Solution; remove household chemicals and solid foods from our lives?
3,000 choking deaths. Solution; ban food (feed everyone intravenously)?
1,400 accidental gun deaths. Solution; ban guns.
Funny you should say that. Go to the library and read the history of the revolt in the Warsaw Ghetto.
You might also try expanding your vocabulary to include words other than "fuck".
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The only time that the Supreme Court has ruled on the second amendment it was in US v. Miller. At issue was that one Mr. Miller was in possesion of a sawed off shotgun for which he had not paid the $200 tax and registration (this was in 1934) in violation of the National Firearms Act.
The Supreme court ruled that since a shotgun was not currently used in active duty by the US Military (incorrect) that the shotgun was not protected by the Constitution.
Most unfortunately Mr. Miller or his lawyer never showed up at the Supreme Court to defend the case. It was decided entirely upon the merit of the prosecutions arguments and the previous legal decisions.
What has the anti-gun people terrified is that the Supreme court clearly ruled that any weapon in current use by the military was protected by the Constitution for use and ownership by the common law abiding citizen. This includes pitols, rifles, and machine guns.
chris
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
... and the politicians know it. The relatively honest ones will even tell you so.
That's because it is essentially a training and research organization for all issues related to guns - starting with safety. It's the government-recognized regulatory organization for the shooting sports in the US. It trains the people who train the army and the police. Nearly every expert in technical issues related to guns is associated with it.
It got its start as a safety and training organization after the US got into a war and discovered that the draftees no longer knew enough about shooting to make decent (or safe) soldiers. It's focus was training - first safety, then accuracy. And it grew from there.
They are THE experts, and are jealous of that status. So they make a point of giving out information that is as correct as they can manage - to the point of NOT saying things that are very likely correct but not proven beyond controversy (much to the disgust of many of their members and EX members, who have founded other organizations to bring these points to light.)
Lobbying (through their separate ILA organization) is a relatively new thing for them. It started primarily in reaction to the anti-gun movement - which was getting to the point that they realized they were at risk of having nothing left to be experts about. And for a long time the lobbying arm was essentially lobbying for the country-club set, selling out many other sorts of gun-sport enthusiasts (such as the machinegun fans, the gun design hackers, and to some extent those who were mostly concerned with self-defense.) NRA-ILA is agruably STILL the most milksop of the pro-gun lobbying groups.
The anti-gun organizations, on the other hand, have quite a track record of publishing bogus numbers. Sometimes they have SOME basis in fact. Other times they seem made up from whole cloth.
Example: "X number of childeren killed by guns per day/year". Sometimes when the number is worked out against crime stats you find they're counting people up to age 25 as "children". This includes the members of teenage drug gangs, and most other murderers. (Murder is a young man's crime, and most murderers kill members of their own race, class, and age group.) Other times you wonder where the numbers come from, because they exceed the total number of gun deaths. For more reasonable definitions of "children" (like under-12) you'll have a hard time finding a year where the numbers get out of the low single-digits in states like California (with a high crime rate and pushing a fifth of the entire US population.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
How am I "wrong" I simply, possibly rhetorically, asked 'how often do people get shot in a holdup', implying.. 'not very often'.
REALLY not very often. Like.. hardly ever..
OK, Let's remember one thing. Your country got it's freedom peacably. The US got it's in Blood. We took up arms against our government, and threw them out. Our founding fathers expected this to be necessary again! The "legitimate" reason for owning guns under the second amendment is TO BE ABLE TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT. This is where Jefferson's quote "The Tree Of Liberty must be occasionaly water with the Blood of Patriots" comes from
Riiiiight. Welcome to the 20th Century, son. This is *DEMOCRACY*. The whole POINT is that you do NOT need arms to throw the Government out, just a bit of paper. Besides, the military are MUCH better armed than the citizens, and in the event of a revolt, would easily win.
To quote Jon Katz, "like peas off an M16 tank".
d
-
-
I rather like cows.
However you feel about gun control, it is truly bizarre to contend that those who own or sell guns
are in no way responsible for the consequences if they put a gun in the hands of someone who openly manifests an intention to harm himself or others
So if they sold him a hammer and bashed his head in they are responsible too? It doesn't matter what the tool was meant to do. If someone misuses a gun, it is that person and ONLY that person that is SOLELY responsible. Stop trying to spread the blame around.
That's okay, we all have a RIGHT to voice our opinions. And I take issue with your reply. Comparing the right to vote to the right to bear arms is ridiculous. By voting, you are one voice in many, and the majority will win. If some nutcase decided he's going to vote for a leader who believes aliens are sending him messages through broadcasts of Green Bay Packer games, then so be it, but that leader won't win because of his vote. The majority will vote for the leader that makes the most sense (or failing that, is the candidate for whichever party the voters support). The right to own a gun means that single nutcase can go and kill the entire Packers defensive line with an AK47. This isn't an issue of whether someone is black, white, rich, poor, male, female, straight, gay, or handicapped. It's an issue of "can this person be given the ability to kill someone with minimal effort." A nurse would undoubtedly qualify for gun ownership, as they would have to have some level intelligence, sanity, and definately responsibility to be in the position they are in. The key is that background checks have to be standardized, so that the same questions are asked of every person wishing to own a gun, and not be held to the whims of some bigotted bureacrat.
A better analogy to use would have been driving. It's nobody's RIGHT to drive, it's a priviledge granted after one passes a series of standardized tests that determine driving ability, safety and responsibility. It's the RIGHT of anyone to try to get their license, as many times as they want, but that doesn't mean that they HAVE to have a license granted to them. The same should hold for gun control
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.
I don't think that guns are needed for people for self defence from guys walking around on the street, they are needed to keep us from being trampled by the US Government!
The point is, if the government wanted to trample over you, it would. If you had a gun, then OK. But it doesn't matter. If the government doesn't like you, it will just deal with you. If you have a gun, it will deal with you more harshly. Do you really think that if the government suddenly wanted to do something terrible to the american people, you could stop it with your gun?
thenerd.
The camels are coming. I'm in love.
You know, this is pretty convenient what with the Million Mom march this weekend and all...
"The further I get from the things that I care about, the less I care about how much further away I get." -Robert Smith
There is no place in the USA which has had a registration law which has not, within a generation, been used to either restrict further sales of firearms, or enforce a ban.
The most egregious example is Chicago, where all handguns must be registered, but registration is CLOSED to all new owners, yet hundreds of people each year are convicted for not doing something they are not allowed to do (register their pistol). Does this make Chicago safer?
Actually, not all automobiles are registered, licensed, or taxed- only cars that are driven on public roads are taxed. I bought my first car at age 14, without a license, or registration, for the sole purpose of off-road use, and violated no laws.
If laws banning objects work, then how is it that we still have a drug problem? Why was prohibition a failure, and ultimately repealed?
That the FBI could 'accidentally' halt all gun sales through an 'unforseen error' is not a good thing. Who is to say that the next time it won't be intentional?
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Actually, you can. Look at countries like Britian, Germany and the Netherlands. They have pretty low crime rates. Suprisingly, they exist in a world where guns are commonplace!
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
Protecting yourself from a nuclear power with handguns (or semiautomatic assault rifles or whatever)? Any common sense ever applied to the thinking of gun fanatics? That may have been the case in the 1700's but not anymore. Few thousand gallons of mustard gas (or any other modern battle gas or virus developed for biological warfare) should do ok if your govenment really wanted to oppress you.
All there is to support NRA etc. is the same old macho bravado that gets you wife beaten every friday night. Please stop kidding yourself and finally grow up.
______________
______________
OTTERS RULE.
Draw your own conclusions.
The two may very well have nothing to do with each other. To use an example from the Simpsons: I have a rock in my yard. As long as that rock has been there, no tigers have come into my yard. Therefore, this rock wards off tigers!
Equating gun ownership with a low level of crime is foolish without other evidence to support it.
Of course, if you'd like to buy my magic rock, I'd be happy to sell it to you! ;)
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
No all anti-gun people are also anti-drug. Check your assumptions before you start accusing people.
I must be a hick because I'm from Alberta, and lean toward the Canadian right wing (which is really the center). Its a good thing our left wing government implemented a gun registration system that allows for unwarranted search and siege based on _seizure_ of unregistered guns.
Oh, and thank you for showing your superiority over us with generalizations and mistruths.
Up to 50% of the legally registered guns in the US are not properly entered in the Federal database, due to incompetence, illegal procedures, and the outright destruction of thousands of legally submitted, but unprocessed records by BATF employees to 'reduce backlog'.
Under the current system, the NFRTR return "No record found" if a registration inquiry is made for one of these guns, which is considered proof of illegal possession, and grounds for prosecution. Dealers and private owners who submitted legal paperwork have gone to jail because the BATF denied knowledge of them.
In other words, any legal gun owner has a 50-50 chance of facing a costly legal case, and possible jail time, because the NFRTR records have been in shambles all along. This is confirmed by the 1995 Congressional of Thomas A. Busey, then Chief of the National Firearms Act Branch of the BATF (see below) "...when I first came in a year ago, our error rate was between 49 and 50 percent"
The BATF has stonewalled and denied for years, but have been forced to admit detail after painful detail (only to deny them all again the following year) A Google search for "Gary Schaible" (no quotes) will turn up dozens of documents and links to further information. (Special Agent Schaible was a BATF spokesman whose testimony to courts and Congress has been full of inaccuracies and outright purjury.)
Anyone who owns legal guns, or believes that registration can ever work should read "Institutional Perjury", an article by Col (ret.) James H. Jeffries, III USMC, Reserve (a retired DOJ lawyer, practicing firearms law in Greensboro, N.C) outlining some of the BATF abuses. (This includes the Busey quote above, but does not cover the famous "Gestapo tactics" incidents)
Reform from within hasn't worked either. Here's as affadavit by Eric Martin Larson of the GAO (Government Accounting Office) regarding systematic errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) and his efforts to have them corrected. This is just one of his many reports and letters to Congress, but after his initial failure, his later reports are painstaking line by line and word by word responses to BATF tetimony and documents, and are very diffficult to read without the originals in front of you
---------------------------------------------
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
[roughly: "...swords don't kill people; people kill people."]
-- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD),
_____________
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
While do not doubt that guns are part of the problem in the US, there are many other factors. Social and economic differences, and racial relations being major concerns. There is no single problem that can differentiate the countries, but the mindset of the citizens must also be taken into account.
In any case, despite your warning, many people deserve the safety that a firearm affords, particularly if they are vulnerable to crime.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
Many illicit drugs are harvested/produced overseas (ie. South America). Give me 2 hours and I could probably find some for you.
The United States does not exist in a vacuum, after all.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
This is an interesting question and I am not sure where I stand but... Registration of firearms in no way infringes anyone's ownership of a firearm as long as anyone could register a firearm. The ammendment mentions a well-regulated militia. Remember that when the constitution was written there were no (or very few) police forces. So what is meant by a well-regulated militia? It may refer to groups organized by states or communities and drilled for the common defense of the people. These were quasi-official groups that were under some regulation, usually by state or community officials. It is unclear as to whether the framers meant that any non-regulated individual would be covered. Also, the Supreme Court has frequently curtailed "rights" given by the Constitution to "the people". Free speech, rights to a jury trial, rights of a defendant to confront their accusers, unfair seizures, etc. The Court routinely balances the interests of the general public and the interests of the individual. The Courts have frequently said certain individuals or types of individuals are exceptions to rights guaranteed to "the people".
I knew this would come up.
I understand that a lot of people in the US believe that we here in Australia are somewhat crazy for preventing the average citizen from owning a handgun. For some reason we are thought of as being under a facist Government that won't allow us to defend ourselves should there be a Government overthrow (not likely) or an invading force.
I'd like to make a few points.
I live in Sydney, probably the most crime ridden of all cities in Australia, however I feel safer walking around the City knowing that on average less people will be 'packing heat'. I feel more comfortable with that. Otherwise, you wouldn't know what anyone has, and I'd feel less comfortable.
I don't 'need' a gun. No one here 'needs' a gun. If there is something about governments to talk about, it's whether or not they are doing a sufficient job in suppressing crime. I feel our government does a fair bit towards the suppression of crime, considering that most drug hauls for instance are in customs from -incoming- shipments. Lower crime means greater safety for the people.
Supress the crime and you will not need a gun.
Sure, there's the argument that the criminals will always get the guns when they want. But you have to ask, when are you going to be involved with a criminal with a gun?
Being in the middle of a bank holdup is unfortunate, but very unlikely. I think that the most chance of being confronted by a crim with a gun is if you are involved with criminals yourself. Most shootings here are gang members shooting eachother up. To me, that can only be a good thing since they are removing themselves from society.
You can not exclude all chances of crime, but you can minimise the crime amongst 'average' citizens. Let the goons shoot eachother.
I think that the removal of guns from society has decreased the average level of tension amongst people in the streets here since you can be fairly sure that no one is carrying a gun.
In fact, the amount of guns in the US is one of the things keeping me from going there, at least to the major cities. I just don't like my chances of survival.
"+1 Thoroughly Sarcastic" :)
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
This is so incredibly correct, and so disturbingly ignored by the media.
1st amendment Grants us the Right to say the government sucks. ( and protects the media)
2nd amendment grants us the right to the tools required to rise up and overthrow the government if that's what we chose.
It never had a thing to do with crime and crime prevention and it shouldn't now. Any attempt by the government to restrict us, limits our rights.
The background check computer ( which is so conveniently down now) is also a fully effective registration tracking system. ( They log every request) Personally I feel the Background check would be OK, but they should be required by LAW to discard the request logs... You will never see that in this PC Age..
If the founding fathers were alive today to see the scope of rights we have given up... well,..... they would die of disgust.
Or quite a few other western countries around the world (like in Europe...).
.,@
This insanity has gone on far too long in the US. But maybe I'm just not tuned in to your kind of thinking, as I am one from the other side of the Atlantic...
xchg
xchg
jmp emailMe
Why does DC have so much crime? I'm guessing people go slowly insane from the massive buildup of politicians.
Hehe true. I'm from DC, btw, but like most, I live in the suburbs. The problem with DC arises from the its demographic nature. There are some nice parts of DC certainly, and a lot of businesses, but most people commute from the suburbs (see: DC has worst traffic in the US). Relatively few members of the middle and upper classes live in DC. I don't think you will disagree that crime is a common problem among large urban poor areas. That's exactly what most of the residential part of DC is (southeast).
Anyway, since DC is populated by a *large* number of politicians, lobbyists, etc. Making a law tends to be the solution to nearly everything. Enforcement isn't the job of the legislative branch remember? Thus, high crime: solution, make handguns illegal. Does it work? Well the crime rate *has* decreased. Is it fair to law abiding citizens? Maybe not, but a majority of the voting population in DC seems to think it's the best choice. Is it Constitutional? It depends on your interpretation of the Constitution, let us just say that the 2nd Amendment is not entirely clear. Who constitutes a militia after all?
Essentially I applaud any efforts to reduce crime, even at the cost of the 2nd Amendment. My support for this measure is purely pragmatic. Crime has been reduced in DC, whether or not its due to this measure I don't know. But it certainly doesn't seem that the "only the outlaws have guns" premise is causing the law-abiding citizens of DC to flee from the menacing criminals. Crime and murder rates have decreased and the number of middle and upper class living in DC has *increased* over the last few years.
Spyky
The problem being that it's difficult to find a study you can trust (almost all studies are paid for by one side or the other, c.f. Mindcraft). I've seen studies which "proved" that even relatively minor crimes have a greatly increased chance of turning lethal in states which have concealed weapons laws.
:)
And of course, that's why the "Old West" was so peaceful and law-abiding, because everyone carried weapons, right?
The fact is, the problem is not so simple to solve as both the pro-gun and anti-gun forces would have everyone believe. I can think of few scarier things than either a) a completely vulnerable populace or b) a mugging turning into a huge shoot-out with a bunch of hot-headed, semi-trained people firing wildly at each other.
Let us not forget the first rule of Tech Support: Most people are stupid. I'd rather not be around a bunch of stupid people with lethal weapons (moreso).
-- "God, Root, what is difference?" - Pitr, "User Friendly"
Sorry no, I disagree.
Guns are not the problem crime is the problem. If more and more criminals started usinging computers would you want to outlaw them? No because they are important to you. The right to bear arms is important to me.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
"That would make you?"
Probably not a sheep. More likely a parrot.
Mike van Lammeren
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
Yeah, but England never had a violent crime problem like the US does (even before their strict gun control, I must point out). Surely you think that guns should be *available* to police, even if they are not carried?
Oh, come off it.
I understand absolutely why there's this attachment to an armed population in the US. But I also understand that armies are different now and that it has consequences.
Go back 200 years and military technology wasn't that hot. Net result, you could get your hands on the materials necessary to equip a useful pricte army. Now? Forget it. The US military is awesomely powerful and is _not_ going to be held up by the level of arms available to the population if they decide to rise up against them.
The other side is that an armed population increases the amount of violent crime. Non-gun related, the UK has _higher_ crime than the US. But rates of gun violence and murder are _way_ lower.
If you think the perceived protection against the state is worth the huge cost to your society of gun violence, it's your country. Not mine. And your decision, as a US citizen, whether you consider that to be a balanced cost-benefit equation. But it isn't a price I'd pay were I in your shoes.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Yes, they do need to be available if criminals have guns. But the safeguards should be very strict. We have loosened those safeguards recently - for example, now there are some routine armed patrols. The inevitable result is that every few months, police marksmen shoot some poor lunatic dead because he was waving an airgun around, or carrying a table leg that "might have been" a shotgun (real case).
----------------------------------
What are the weapons of happiness?
Like the demigods who wrote the constitution forsaw the invention of the Uzi, the Internet etc. If they had, you can bet they would have changed a few things to stop morons like you wandering into Seven-11 with a concealed automatic weapon.
But it's my constitutional right! I didn't realise I had the safety off officer.
or sister, or whatever you wish to be called. 8D
Excuse me for my ignorance, sir, but what does this have to do with *privately* owned guns? Do you take your own handgun with you when you join the army?
>Yeah, aside from the bombings, the British Troops, the ordered executions and other terrorist activity Ireland is totally crime free!
::fingers crossed:: the peace process will eliminate this source of weapons.
Most if not all of these activities occur in Northern Ireland which is a different country to Ireland. There are gun dumps, training camps in the south and some of these weapons have found their way into crimes in Ireland but
Current murder rate in Ireland is averaging out at 1 a week but unfortunately is getting higher. At the start of this century Ireland was a heavily armed society after the war of independence and civil war but steps were taken to prohibit gun ownership.
Q: Wouldn't it be easier for a dealer to drop the S&W line?
A: The Clinton administration was counting on S&W's status as the number one gun maker. Having absorbed that variety of antitrust analysis that describes a manufacturer as "controlling" a certain market share, the president's men thought helpless buyers would have no place to go. They figured they could leverage S&W's market share through what amounts to a tying arrangement: If dealers and gun shows wanted to stock the dominant manufacturer's line, they'd have to agree to stop promoting disfavored, competitive product lines.
Q: Wait a minute. Isn't that kind of like what Microsoft did to Netscape?
A: Yep. Tying arrangements aimed at excluding competitive products from the market are bad, bad, bad when dominant companies attempt them on their own. But very similar arrangements are to be applauded when companies do them in collusion with state attorneys general and cabinet secretaries.
Q: How did the tying arrangement work?
A: It was an instant flop. Rather than allow someone else's legal needs to dictate their business practices and inventory, many dealers resolved to drop the S&W product line. Instead of the race to settle that the gun suit organizers expected, they got a race to break ties with the (former) market leader. Aside from the dealers who jumped ship, some organizers of shooting matches have told S&W that it is no longer welcome, and other gun companies stopped coordinating their legal defense efforts with S&W, which meant it had to find a new law firm.
Q: What happened then? Did the anti-gun side admit it had miscalculated?
A: You're not going to believe this part. Several of the most combative state attorneys general, including Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal and New York's Eliot Spitzer, announced that they were going to sue the gun industry for not cooperating with S&W. On antitrust grounds, no less. This may be the first antitrust action in history aimed at smaller companies that refused to enter into tying arrangements with the dominant manufacturer in their market. It's a purely political move, meant to punish the still-free portions of the gun industry for their determination to remain free.
Contributing Editor Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, edits the new Web site Overlawyered.com . Visit Walter Olson's official Web site
they are State Rights.
Your reasoning that most of the Bill of Rights are
rights of individuas, there for all of them are for individuals is sylogistic (aka. primitive and
invalid).
Origional intent, Supreme Court rulings, the Militia Act of 1918 (if I remember correctly),
and common sense reading of the 2nd amendment
all point to the 2nd amendment as a State's Right.
Do you wish the States to not have the right to
maintain armies? I think states having the right
to maintain armies protects my freedom from a tyranical Federal Government more than every individual having a pistol or rifle.
I am in favor of broad eligibilty of the citizenry to own guns. But I think it is a lesser "right". One which must, for practical reasons, come with
reasonable regulations.
The real challenge is to hold the line on "reasonable regulations". So that these appropriate limitations on gun ownership don't become defacto banning of gun ownership.
Gun advocates are loosing the battle, because they
won't engage in these discussions over reasonable regulations. The "all or nothing" battle will result in the "nothing" side winning.
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
It seems like an arbitrary figure arrived at purely so the media will repeat the alliterative Million Mom March, over and over again. After all, how do you count the number of people at a march... before you've had the march?
This propaganda technique was employed by both Hitler and the Soviet Union, it's called the big lie. (In other words, if you say the same big lie, over and over again, you get a significant percentage of the population believing it.)
Is there a neutral party doing the count?
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
The founders did not give us the right to keep and bear arms; they recognized that we have a natural, intrinsic right to self defense and put the amendment in place to limit the power of government to infringe on that right.
If we were to get a tyrannical government, it would be our duty to defend our natural rights, constitution or no constitution. For that, we will need guns.
Well, there will always be guns available, which is why you see them in countries that don't manufacture guns at all, and furthermore the US makes and will continue to make a lot of guns for export and police use even if gun use here is outlawed, but the fact of the matter is that if guns are unavailable to citizens, criminals will not need guns. They will merely prey on the physically weak. Meanwhile, the few criminals who *do* have guns will be all the more confident.
A similar argument could be made against privacy. If you really ARE law-abiding, why do you need encryption? Why are you afraid of law enforcement officers routinely checking your home? What have you got to hide?
IMHO, your very first question shows a misunderstanding of the roots of American culture. In a free society, one need not justify one's actions, when they do not infringe directly on the rights of others. It is enough that a free man may want a gun.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
The dumbass that I stopped a few minutes ago was wanted for a very vicious rape earlier this evening,according to the troopers.He raped and vicously beat up a 19 year old girl in a nearby county.How he made it here without killing himself or anyone else is a miracle in itself.He wasn't counting on anyone being up. My wife and teen daughter were glad now that I waste a lot of time on this site.(Got the big eye,can't sleep) Sorry for getting off the subject,but it does show me that I had better stay armed--to the teeth.
Geek Hillbilly
As to your second point, I know it may be hard to imagine so many episodes, but surveys show many many thousands of people successfully defend themselves with guns every year. Most of these situations aren't where a criminal is already holding you at gunpoint. But rather, at night you are awakened by the sound of an intruder breaking into your house. Or you are traveling through a city at night, perhaps to or from work. I was once at a gas station where a fellow attempted to abduct a girl in his car. It happened so quickly he might have had time to drive off, but myself and two other people pulled guns on him from our cars and yelled at him to stop. Faced with three armed, angry people, he did. I'd hate to think what might have happened to that girl had she beem depending only on the police to follow. This experience is multiplied many thousands of times across the country. The fact is, there is no better way to stop a violent criminal than to carry a firearm.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
When the State of Maryland does background checks on gun purchases, the dealer is required to put the make, model and serial number of the firearm on the form before sending it to the State Police. Why do they need this information if they are only doing a background check?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
And things like that never, ever happen in the US i suppose?
Summary of Radio Ads:
- innocent people (typically women) being stabbed/raped/strangled in their homes
- innocent people unarmed
- criminal armed with large body mass (bulk) and knife/baseball bat/hands
- innocent person could not afford taxpayer financed ARMED body guard like the "gun control" politicians
- innocent person could not afford expensive private ARMED bodyguard like "gun control" celebrities
BTW, I was physically assaulted and mugged at GUN-POINT outside the NAS Alameda Navy Base (SF Bay area) in 1993. The local thugs knew "squids" returning to base on foot were UNARMED (easy target) by Naval Regulations (no place to conveniently store a legal firearm). Like they say, doubt regarding whether I have a gun on my person or in my home is a deterent. "S/he 'might' have a firearm, better pick an easier target" Deterance works well (evidence - nuclear weapons & Cold War btwn USSR/US, NK/SK, China/Taiwan, India/Pakistan)
Trolls would be bulky creatures wouldn't they? If one were attacking you what would you use to defend yourself? A firearm perhaps???? No ... I will use a UN Resolution!
Alien with exoskeleton is attacking!!! What would you use to defend yourself??? A high-velocity assault rifle with teflon coated bullets??? No ... I will use another UN Resolution!
"Maintain a questioning attitude"
I believe Juanita
Jefferson himself suggested that the Constitution should be amended and/or altered regularly - that Constitutional conventions should be held every two years.
And now, hundreds of years later, we treat the Constitution like the ten commandments - unwilling and unable to muster the courage to change a document that so must obviously be brought into line with modern life.
What a shame - except for gun violence (which, although is decreasing, is decreasing from a level that was and still is shameful), America really is a great place to live.
Rome had lead pipes, The US has guns and courts. Boths poisoned their empires from the inside.
In any case, despite your warning, many people deserve the safety that a firearm affords, particularly if they are vulnerable to crime.
The safety at expense of others NOT having a gun, which will make people not holding a gun go out and get one, which will make the other people (which were the first to buy guns) buy more and bigger guns so that they are safer than the others and so on and so on.
Besides, how in the whole wide world should it make you safe carrying a gun? If you are held up at gunpoint by a criminal, how big do you think your chances are of getting shot if you try to reach for a possible gun? I'd say about 99%. And how often do you think you have the oppertunity to stop a crime by carrying a gun? I'd say that it's not likely to happen in your life time.
Please inlighten me if there is something I'm missing.
Will work for bandwidth!
No. I'm assuming that handguns are for shooting people. I admit that I forgot about sport shooting, which is not shooting at people, but targets shaped like people. I will continue to assume that the target-practice is to make one a better shot, when the time comes to shoot a person.
Mike van Lammeren
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
As for crime that is defined by a countries laws. Under Hitler few people were willing to commit a crime. I wouldn't want to live in such a society would you?
Guns are tools they are not even the most dangerous tools in our society. Knowledge is power and computers are probably more dangerous to todays societies then any number of guns. Would you like to outlaw computers as well. More people are killed in car accidents then shootings how about outlawing cars. No? Your just willing to outlaw the things that you don't find important. Guns are not just used to kill. They are used for protection, entertainment, and many people collect guns as a hobby or investment. The only people who shouldn't have guns are criminals and if you outlaw guns they will be the only ones who have them.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
I always thought it was due to the rampant poverty in DC combined with the increasing tendency for anyone with money to move to subarban VA or MD.
As for taxation without representation, I was taxed since well before I was of voting age, that concept has become a farce in the people's republic of america.
I'm ready to say that at least 99.99 % (note: this stat is made up, but realistic) of gun owners know what they do and aren't dangerous. The problem is with the 0.01 % remaining, which represents a several thousands dangerous people. Also, the simple fact that there are 100 millions (or was it 200 millions) firearms in the US makes it really easy to get one without being noticed.
Just as a comparison, I live in Canada. The population is about 1/10 of that in the US. However the deaths due to firearms are 1/100 of that in the US. The reason? Guns control. Hand guns are illegal, except for police and similar. Other guns are strictly (It could be even more strict, I wouldn't mind) controled. For instance, if I want to buy a firearm, the check now includes calling any wife/girlfriend/ex-girlfriend to see if I'm not threatening her.
I know that the biggest argument of pro-firearms people is "we need to defend ourselves agains criminals who have guns anyway (whether legal or not)". There are a couple reasons this doesn't stand. First, many killers aren't in organized crime, but (almost) normal people who suddenly went nuts and happened to have a gun because everybody has one. Second, if guns are illegal (or strictly controled), it becomes harder for criminals to gather a huge arsenal (and it makes gathering firearms look a bit more "suspect"). Thirdly, the gun you buy to defend yourself, may also be the one that kills you - or your child (how many children are accidently killed bu firearms?). At last, if all firearms could be eliminated, you couldn't defend yourself with a gun, but you wouldn't need to defend yourself against guns.
OK, now I guess I have the NRA after me!
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Cars can and do run people over, but by and large they are not used for that purpose. Here's an example to help you understand. Picture an empty parking lot, with cardboard cutouts of people. Someone training to drive a car would try NOT to run the cardboard people over, someone training to fire a pistol would try TO shoot the cardboard people. Now do you understand? Or do I have to use more capital letters?
Mike van Lammeren
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
IANFT (I Am Not From Texas)
Hurqalya
It's unlikley anyone can conceal a car on their person and use it in a momemt of passion
Guns are not bad. Neither are bombs or biological weapons. The uncertain variable has always been human nature. People get angry, jealous, upset. Check out the firearm violence new sometime. In my area, most of the non-drug related deaths are accidents and crimes of passion.
...................
...................
...................
American here, FWIW. I think that we actually showed you brits why universal gun ownership was valuable about 225 years ago. To think that the common people owning weapons is outdated is to think that common people being able to speak freely is also outdated.
Following your 'logic', we all would have to walk everywhere. Criminals use autos quite frequently, i've been told, and it certainly makes sense to remove the rights of all citizens to stop the criminals that may use them. Of course, that just goes to show how the government feels about it's citizens, now doesn't it?
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin,
That's what they said today on one of France's main TV's.
They also say that 1 of every 10 american says that it has had a gun fired at him.
Even worse, one child or a teen is fired every two hours in the USA. More children die yearly in the US that in all the rest of "developped" countries together.
In my opinion that is unacceptable and I wouldn't like living in a country that allows that kind of situation. Don't get me wrong! I've been in the US once and I like it a lot (friendly people, interesting cities...) but all the importance that americans give to the right to bear arms seems outdated and difficult to understand to me (and for most of the people on the other side of the atlantic as well, I bet!).
Although the second amendment was probably very reasonable at the time the american constitution was written, times change, and I don't think it is very likely that the government of the US would try (or be able to) unlawfully try to control the citizens of the US. In my opinion the chances of this happening are so small that it would be much more reasonable to limit the right to bear arms in order to save so many children (and adults) of being shot.
Some said that trying to limit the right of people to bear arms would not stop criminals of using them. That is right. However an easy way to stop them is to punish very severly those that have guns without permission (if you were a criminal would you risk 4 years of prison for having a gun if you could use a knife instead? And a knife, although dangerous, is much less likely of killing a children that was just playing on the street).
On a related issue, I don't understand why many (americans) seem to believe that having a gun protects them. I'd think that having a gun makes you a much more likely target of someone else's gun...
I'd like to finish by saying that this is by no means to be interpreted as an "attack" to those (americans) that belive in their right to bear arms. I respect that, although I don't understand it, maybe because I am not american...
Angel
No, of course not. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, justice, liberty, etc, are all RIGHTS, as they should be. None of them allows one person to wield power over life and death like the ownership of a gun does. If some nutcase wants to stand on a street corner and tell me Bill Clinton is an alien, then he/she has every right to do so. I'm intelligent enough to ignore or listen as I see fit. But if someone sticks a gun in my face and pulls the trigger, then *I* lose any control I have. I no longer have the choice to ignore something like that. The right to bear arms is one of the few "rights" that FORCES something onto another person. And that's why it should be considered a priviledge, not a right.
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.
I live less than 30 miles from DC, have been there plenty. As has been pointed out, I was being sarcastic. Sheesh. Guess I'm catching it from both sides here.
... maybe. Still.
That, or I just fed a troll
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Excuse me for my ignorance, sir, but what does this have to do with *privately* owned guns? Do you take your own handgun with you when you join the army?
Allow me to quote the paragraph above the one you quoted.
Typical Eurotrash thinking. "I don't understand it, it must me worthless". It wasn't so worthless in 1914-15 and then AGAIN in the 40's, when England was running ads in papers over here, BEGGING for those guns for their defence.
Privately held guns were begged to be donated to England (and France in WWI). That's what I was referring to.
To answer your question a little more throughly, actually, one of the _defining_ battles in the United State's Civil War was won by a regiment who's commander had bought Spenser rifles (which were supposed to have been Union issue, but the entrenched bureacracy and obstinate officers had virtually kept them out of the army) personally.
Some interesting reading. Charging Confederate soldiers (I'll leave what battle this is up to the reader, don't want to drop TOO many hints), going up a hill - versus Spensers. Confederates had muzzle-loaded caplocks. Spenser's were lever action, 7 shot, breechloading, loadable from cover/prone.....
And the Confederates were decimated.
So yes, sometimes personal weapons are used, previously the disarmed British have begged twice (and the French once) - for weapons to arm their "home guard" - from the American stock of privately held weapons.
Addison
Put on your tinfoil hat and get your gun martha!
The British are coming back and they want us bad...
And you refuse to.
Reread your history book first. Guns were pretty common around Europe before WWII,
Either you didn't read yours - or you're in Germany and they left that part out.
Go get some new ones. One of Hitler's first acts - was to disarm the populace. And ESPECIALLY the Jews.
The fact you're not noticing that Europe *had* been disarmed..... Plus your views on hunting/meat eating and military.... I'd try to enlighten you as to reality.. but your reply proves it's pointless.
In my mind guns are a very good thing, we just need to educate the ignorant people in this country about thier proper use. If you did get rid of guns, what next? knives ? scissors? Power tools? Cars? How about we pad the whole world like a mental hospital, so that no one ever gets hurt. We can even demand people give up their shoe laces.
People need to take responsibity for their actions, enough of this "I spilled coffee on myself, give me 10 million dollars" or "The tobbacco industry made me destroy myself, give me 10 million dollars" or "its the gun industrys fault I was looking down the barrel of a loaded gun while cleaning it, give me ten million dollars". We should be thanking these industries for supporting Darwin, not suing them. Now there is a warning labels on everything, because companies have to assume your missing three chromasomes, as well as your common sense.
I quit smoking, its not that hard, and I smoked two pack a day of Pall Malls. If this country really cared about the heath threat, the money would have "really" gone to prevention programs and health programs. I live in Utah, here they pave the roads with the tar from peoples lungs.
Heck, anyone with an IQ over 80 can put together a bomb that if properly placed can wipe out a couple thousand people. Speaking of bombs, what would have happened at Columbine had those propane canisters gone off? Instead of 13 people dead it would have been a whole lot more. Had that been their main focus, I'm sure they would have gone off.
The reason stuff like this is happening is because the press glamourizes it. Now every kid in America thinks that if they kill fifty people at school, they will end up immortalized, and they will even have their own video released with an anti-gun soundtrack. The reason this happens is because some people would rather live (or die) in infamy, than to have people never know thier names.
Ask yourself in all of this, who has the cash lined pockets from this occurence? Is it the same people that are telling you guns are bad?
This is an unrelated question, and I hope I don't offend any body, I now some of you will take it the wrong way. In regards to the Columbine occurence, how hard is it to count bodies? Did the American public even hear the true story?
Emergency room statistics-only 6% percent of people die from gunshot wounds. Maybe I'm strange, but I'd rather be shot to death, than beaten or stabbed to death.
Look to Switzerland, then look to DC. Don't just look at guns though, look at culture, look at education, look at the amount of people living in poverty. You will see a well armed society does reduce crime, you will also see education, culture, and capital also greatly effect crime.
<p>
One of those strange things. A Republican Speaker of the House trying to improve the lives of people living in DC (most are registered Democrats). For decades the Democrap Speakers of the House cared not at all about DC.
<p>
"Maintain a questioning attitude"
I believe Juanita
And Germany was a Democracy in the 1920s and 1930s.
The Army better armed? Yep, you bet. But remember, there are approx 80 MILLION gun owners in the USA. If even ONE percent of those fight, they have the same number of people as the armed forces. If it's 10%, we WAY outnumber them. Remember, a much less well armed force threw us out of Vietnam, and the Russians out of Afghanistan. Also remember, that a cerntain percentage of people in the Military will fight on the other side, so you will get advanced weapons
Your argument would make more sense if you were comparing DC to another large American city, such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Seattle, et cetera. But you will find that among large US cities, the statistics do not vary much. The problem lies in the fact that US cities have more crime than foreign cities of equal size.
You could spend two lifetimes researching why this is the case. Is it the psychological conflicts created by so many races and cultures brought into such close proxmity? Is it the (relatively) lax laws? Is it our diet and social habits?
And yes, the US does have lax laws. US gun control is *very* lax compared with the rest of the world. Despite Americans' belief that being armed is a natural right, the US is a small part of the total world population, and most countries do not share that belief. And, of course, with the highest overall rate of violent crime, we don't look very good.
I don't know where I stand on gun control. Part of me looks at a country like Japan, where it is extremely difficult for a private citizen to obtain a handgun, and has very low violent crime rates. Is it still possible to get robbed at gunpoint? Yes. But less likely. And you won't find many drive-by shootings in Japan. BUT are gun control laws the reason? Who knows! After all, they differ in all ways I stated before, for instance: almost no racial or cultural diversity (on the verge of xenophobia, even toward other Asians).
The US is unique. Every country is. No one group or person or belief is right. Keep an open mind, and remember: don't take what you read on Slashdot too seriously. I enjoy the occasional gun-control story, but I'm much happier when the flamewars stick to which Linux distros, UNIX flavors, window managers, and exactly /why/ Microsoft sucks big floppy donkey dick. But that's because I'm a computer geek, though and through.
One more comment: I wish that the less expereinced posters (such as Timothy) would drop their snide little comments at the end of each story intro. Not only are they incredibly stupid, but they just fuel the flamewar. Slashdot is a news outlet. Just like any other: they choose specific views to report, and so will always have a bias, but journalists should try to be impartial. Slashdot is a big-time site now, and with the incredible number of readers that you have accumulated, (not to mention recent exposure in national news outlets), I would like to see a more professional approach. Roblimo: Rob, Jeff, and Pater can have free reign for all I care, but Timothy, Cliff, Jamie, and Emmett could use a little more guidance. That's what an editor is for. I hate to see Rob's name put on such substandard work.
Speaking of which, I am glad that Taco is posting again! My guess is that after the Washington Post article, he wanted to appear to newcomers as if he had more of a day-to-day role in the site's activities. I believe that Taco has been posting at greater frequency in the last few days than he has in months!
There are more per capita murders in major cities today than there were in "the Old West."
I don't see anything of that sort in his comment. I just see someone from Canada explaining how it works in his country and his view on gun control. Would you like to explain what you think is generalizations and mistruths?
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
you quote George Mason saying that "all the people" were the militia. this is the same group of folks that began the constitution with "we the people..." at the time "we the people" were property owning white males. blacks were considered 3/5ths of a person - and only because southern states wanted to boost their population counts.
gay men and women are not allowed in the us military - so obviously if they're "out" then they can be stripped of their right to bear arms, yes? and women in the military aren't allowed in combat, so their right to guns is questionable.
blah, blah, blah.
thankfully i moved to ireland. not only are guns severely restricted, but even the police are (mostly) unarmed. friends and co-workers are astonished on a regular basis about school and office shootings in the states - i patiently explain that the gun nuts who have congress's ear are just that: nuts.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
"And the group that said mother fuck the police.."
But let's clarify the facts about who is doing the killing, shall we?
- the "general populace" commits less than half of all murders in America
- Murders of "the general populace" by "unpopular racial, religious or ethnic groups" are about two and a half times as frequent as the other way round.
Of course, what you mean by "General Populace" is "White".Just to clear your fuzzy biased little mind, check out the US government stats in interracial murder
--
"I still believe that gamers enjoy shooting people so much because they are so annoying and dumb and just get in their way." -Dave Perry
The scary thing is that the movie was correct. Every time a gun is purchased from a licensed dealer, the purchaser fills out a form ("yellow sheet", ATF Form 4473) that lists the purchaser's name and address, the make, model, and serial number of the gun, and a list of questions about the purchaser's legal status (Are you a convicted felon? etc.). The dealer keeps the form as a permanent part of his records, subject to audit and inspection by the BATF. If the dealer goes out of business, all the records are transferred to the BATF. The BATF has stated that they would like to computerize their records with the eventual goal being to store all of the 4473 forms in a database. The current system is a result of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Letting the gun dealers keep control of the 4473 forms was not an accident, it was intentional. Congress didn't want the federal government to have instant access to this information. The current system allows the government to trace the ownership of a firearm recovered in a criminal investigation, but the FBI or BATF has to do some leg work to trace the firearm from the importer or manufacturer to the retail purchaser. They just can't punch the serial number into a computer terminal and get the name and address of the owner. It also prevents them from doing a database query on all firearms purchased by a given individual.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
disarming the honest citizens
Bullshit ! There's no such thing as a honest citizen. Any citizen is a potential law-breaker. Mass-killers are always law abiding citizen at some point in their life.
So let's make a law for everything, right? That'll fix things.
People don't like being treated like infants.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
The Second Amendment, currently, is not interpreted to say the individuals have the unrestricted right to "bear arms".
First there is US v Miller which says that the second amendment is a State Right and not an Individual Right. The power to regulate militias is the right of the states. To this end the states have the right to arm their militias. Also this ruleing of the Supreme Court has been repeatedly upheld (mostly by denying cert, which is usually interpreted as a strong affirmantion of the earlier ruling). Here are some references.
What a militia is, and is not, is defined in US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13. By the way this excludes female US Citizens who are not a member of the National Guard.
Should you be inclined to argue that US v Miller is just a liberal court ruling which ignores the origional intent of the founding fathers; it would be good to remember that the Federalists won the big battles in the US Constitution. But the Jeffersonians wrote the Bill of Rights. I think the most direct source of the Bill of Rights is the Virginia Declaration of Rights; written by Thomas Jefferson as adopted on June 12, 1776 (3 weeks before the signing of Declaration of Independence). Please look at Section 13 which begins "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;"
None of this says that the US Congress or the States couldn't pass a law specifying that individuals have the right to own and carry small arms. Further the 9th and 10th amendments roughly state that rights and powers not specifically granted the Federal Government are retained by the States and/or people.
Further, much like the legalize drugs arguments the proponents of gun rights focus on small arms and not on shoulder launched Stinger Missles or Mustard Gas, which are clearly military arms. The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as a State Right allows the states to maintain fully armed militias.
Lastly, I personally think the argument that individuals should have to right to carry small arms, because the small arms could be used to defend ourselves from a Federal Government gone tyranical is a very weak argument. I think Afganistan is a good example of this. The Afgan freedom fighters were getting their asses kicked until the CIA began running Stinger Missles and anti-tank wepons to them. These wepons allowed the Afgan rebels to neutralize the HIND Helicopters and other Soviet heavy wepons. This made numbers matter, and they bled the Soviets into retreat. Simmilar lessons come from the US "Police Action" in Vietnam.
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
I say as soon as kids are old enough(13 or 14, most likely) to handle weapons responsibly, we ought to let them carry if they feel a need to defend themselves. Assuming of course they had proper safety training and no history of unstability. There wouldn't be any geeks getting beat up on a daily basis, and something like Littleton would have never gotten so far out of hand.
There was a time when it was perfectly acceptable to bring a gun to school. Of course, since shootings like Littleton were unheard of it was always for the purpose of hunting after school. If kids could be trusted with guns then, they can be trusted now.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Im from Canada, a few hours from Vancouver actually... I rarely see firearms here (other than on the RCMP (cops)) and I like it that way.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I am also Canadian, and if I'm not mistaken, the crimerate in Canada is about 1/10 of that in the US. While I agree that gun control can help stop crime, this has little to do with the differece in gun related deaths between the countries. We also must remember that Canada has not had a strong gun control system, and the one currently being implemented is still not as effective as it could be. A better comparison might be to a European country with a strict policy such as Britain.
I can't believe this didn't dawn on me until just now....
If a significant part of the FBI's criminal ID database is down, it could affect a lot more than gun sales. I imagine a few criminal investigations are going to be held up pending results from the FBI.
If this is the case, shame on AP for turning it into yet another gun story. This could significantly affect law enforcement agencies across the entire country.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
A good reason for not registering guns, is to protect the people who have them in times of civil war. During times of civil war or civil unrest gun owners have the ability to protect themselves from totalitarian governments. They have the resources needed to fight for our freedom. Now, if the governments know who has all the guns, then they can just go out to all the gun owners and collect them.
Doing a background check before selling a gun seems like a good idea to me. Wouldn't want to be handing guns to known criminals. (although I'm sure criminals could get guns anyway) With the FBI doing a background check on every gun purchase, then guns don't need to be registered to know where they are. The FBI will have massive lists of everyone who has ever bought a gun. If the government ever wants to, they can march around and take those guns away with little or no resistance.
The right to bare arms is all about protecting yourself from the government. I don't see how you can do this if the government knows how well you are armed.
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
...only the outlaws have guns.
Sure, the phrase is trite, but it's damned true. No municipal ban on handguns has ever stopped Joe Crackhead down the street from packing heat, and no law ever will. Laws banning firearms in a pre-armed society like the United States simply mean that only the segments of the society that we can least trust with them will have them. Law-abiding citizens then are unable to protect themselves, and law and order proceeds to break down.
Criminals need to be disarmed, not law-abiding private citizens. Existing laws, if enforced, would take care of the first part; most gun-control measures under consideration would affect part 2 with very little effect on part 1.
When I lived in the UK, they touted the 12-20 gun deaths a year as proof that the gun laws in the US were the end of civilisation. What the media and government ignored were the pensioners and ordinary folk beaten to death with hammers and bricks by drunken thugs who DIDN'T EVEN ROB THEM.
Think about this.
I. How high is the proberbility of some one getting hurt in a crime if there is only ONE gun involved?
II. How high is the proberbility of some one getting hurt if there is TWO guns involved?
In all crimes where the crimenals goal isn't to kill the victim, I'd say that the proberbility of some one getting hurt if only the criminal has a gun is about ZERO! (Okay, okay, I'm exaturating). But I guess you get my point.
Will work for bandwidth!
I'm a gun-control advocate. However, I don't see how anything we do currently improves anything, so I'm in favor of giving up on gun-control completely.
That's right. Allow any Tom, Dick, Harry, or Jane to go down to the corner store, and buy themselves a full-auto AK-47 if they want. No background check, no license, just hand over the $300 and Presto! one nice assault rifle.
However, it should be illegal to commercially sell ammo. That's right. You can sell those nice little "do-it-yourself-by-hand" ammo loaders, but no big automated super-industrialized ones, and companies are forbidden to sell manufactured ammo.
The Constitution makes no mention of the right to unlimited ammo. Nope. You want rights - you can have the same ones that the Minutemen had - make your own damn ammo, you lazy Americans! :-)
I'd like to see how long we had a gun problem around here when you can't make 1,000 rounds of ammo for your nice HK MP-3, and you jam every 5th round since you're too hopped up on drugs to run the ammo-loader properly...
Just a thought...
:-)
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
I have read the posts, it just echoes how deeply entrenched the gun culture in America is. If you really ARE law-abiding, why do you need a gun? To protect myself, I hear you say? Why? Because everyone *ELSE* is carrying one! Studies (don't ask me where, and I read it in a print newspaper, anyway), have shown that quite a few killings are caused by people getting very agitated, and finally snapping. And whaddya know? The gun they had for protection purposes is being used for the exact opposite purpose. The hunted becomes the hunter. This raises the crime statistics, people say OMFG, I need a gun to protect myself, end up using it in a situation which definitely isn't self-defence, and then you go to the first part of this paragraph. Isn't recursion a wonderful thing? And, personally, if I did need a gun for a legitimate reason (shooting game, etc is the only one I can think of, and that's really less-than-astonishing), I could wait for a few days. If you're going to go out shooting on the weekend, reschedule. It's not that hard. Just my $AU0.02 (which is likely to be about $US0.00000000003 at the moment). d
-
-
I rather like cows.
The most fascinating part about US v Miller is that Miller did not show for the appearance. The trial was entirely one sided, with the US presenting all of their evidence, and none being presented for Miller.
Miller was a prohibition bootlegger and after he won the case against the state where the State Supreme Court declared that his shotgun was legal because of the second amendment, he went back into the boonies and disappered, never to be found again.
When the Government appealed to the Supreme Court Miller could not be found and his lawyer did not have the money or ability to defend the case at the Supreme Court, so the case went to the SupremeCourt with only the evidence of the State, and the previous decisions.
Unfortunately nobody with any military knowledge became involved in the procedings. The US discovered in World War I that sawed off shotguns were excellent trench warfare weapons and used them quite heavily.
ESR's gun nut page is a great place to start reading on the web.
Chris
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
But you did nothing to disarm his arguments, which were essentially verbatim descriptions of why we lost Vietnam and the British lost the US.
It doesn't matter how well-armed the occupying force (and by occupying force it might mean the standing army simply enforcing laws in its own country) is, it will ALWAYS lose to a civilian population with weapons.
It has nothing to do with "Amerika" or "Red Dawn", this is a simple principle understood since the ealiest military planners of 5000 BC in China and the middle east began writing about military science.
If soldiers (say, white and black americans) are really well armed but are trying to kill terrorists/revolutionaries that look exactly like civilians (because they are!) they will lose because they don't know if that's "Farmer Bob" or "Bob Who's Gonna Shoot Ya", and you can't be on alert 24 hours a day. Ask anyone stationed in Vietnam well behind the front lines how safe it was to be in a US military base in "well-controlled" territory (that is, when terrorists weren't suicide-bombing the place and prostitutes weren't shredding penises with razor blades in their vaginas and restaurants weren't deliberately poisoning food, etc). it's hard to control a country if people really don't want you there, and killing them all (believe it or not!) is rarely an acceptable victory condition to a military...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
have a deep suspicion of the type of person who carrys a penknife
Must be terrifying to get out of bed in the morning!
What ever else you cannot deny that your average american gunowner has a tendancy towards trigger happiness.
Well, sure you can. The vast, vast vast majority of legal gun owners in the US never shoot another human being in their life.
It's the same misconception people have about police in the US -- it's generally thought that they must shoot criminals every few weeks or so. But the truth is the vast majority of police never even draw their gun in defense, and a statistally small portion of that number ever fire a single bullet at a criminal in their entire career. That's why (unfortunately) so many screw-ups occur with cops shooting -- it's so rare to pull a gun no matter how much you train for that moment. It just happens very rarely.
So no, the average american noncriminal gunowner (whether civilian or police) is certainly not trigger-happy in any way.
It's those criminals who do like to shoot a lot more frequently that tend to throw the statistics for the overall population...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
> It might surprise American /.ers, but many people in the UK are as proud of our unarmed policemen as Americans are proud of their armed citizenry.
This summer I worked a very large international training program for HP here in the US. Part of the regular festivities was bar hopping around town every night. One Fellow from Britain was regularly terrified at the appearance of police walking around with guns.
I didn't understand it, I was quite amused and more than a bit terrified when I thought about it.
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
Initially I thought that too. But then I read and heard the objections of the Victim Disarmers (e.g. HCI) to the studies and factual information regarding the incidence of accident, death, personal protection, etc. What a load of baloney. These guys are so far out on the intellectual dishonesty scale you can just write them off completely. When the facts don't fit, they make things up.
Look at GunCite for an example of serious information.
---
I will continue to assume that the target-practice is to make one a better shot, when the time comes to shoot a person.
---
Is it a good deduction, then, that someone who pitches in a softball team is simply improving his/her ability to throw grenades at people?
Or one who plays Quake is learning to take potshots at intruding marauders?
Or one who buys a nice fast car so that they may outrun the police on a given day?
Or one who is involved in track & field is learning to chuck spears at innocent people and leap over their bloody corpses?
Sounds like one hell of a slippery slope your on. I haven't fired a gun in years, but most of the people I've known were either into sport shooting (cardboard targets, for fun) or kept a dust-laden gun around in the unlikely event that someone might break into their home and possibly try to kill them.
You can argue about the fun or lack thereof in sport shooting, or even the sanity of keeping a pistol around for personal protection. But it's a bit overboard to assume these people are just in it so they can shoot someone.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
"An armed society is a polite society"
-Robert Heinlein
"A Little Song, A Little Dance, A Little Seltzer Down your Pants" -Chuckles The Clown
(For the background, I'm European, so I don't much care about whether US citizens are allowed to bear guns. I'm glad we have strict gun control on our side of the Atlantic though, and it is an undeniable fact that we also have lower criminality rate (though the causal link can be questioned, I agree). This being said,)
Sorry, your arguments don't hold water. The division of society into "outlaws" and "law-abiding citizens", although intellectually seducing, is worthless. What about the disoriented twelve-year old how suddenly feels an urge to commit suicide, but first destroying every(thing|one) around him: in which category does he fall? What about the elderly man who, after having led a quiet and peaceful life, suddenly decides to suppress his wife?
Granted, gun control will do nothing to protect you against the "international terrorist" kind. However I don't think guns will be of much help there either. Against the "ordinary criminal" criminal kind I described above, it is quite efficient. Naturally, the dichotomy I am trying to assume here ("international terrorist" vs. "ordinary criminal") is just as dubious as the one you suggest ("outlaw" vs. "law-abiding citizen"), but the point is that the matter is not simple and clear-cut.
But you make a very valuable point: the United States is pre-armed. Which means that trying to introduce gun control is going to be mightily difficult.
RIGHT!! Like everyone else here,the Brady law didn't mean squat,as far as practical,everyday swapping and trading goes.The only gunstore left is due to close soon,due to lack of business and the fact that the background checks are done.(It's due to distrust of the government.)It's a bit like the local option on alchol sales.It can be gotten anywhere,legal or otherwise.Just have to know where to look.
Geek Hillbilly
I'm 26 and I've never, ever, seen a handgun in real life. In fact, that vast majority of Canadians can say the same.. you people have the sickest preoccupation with . I live in inner-city montreal, and I have never, ever felt unsafe walking home at 3:00am (which, in fact, is the time that our bars close and everyone stumbles home). you've got to give up this idea that guns==a higher standard of living.
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
Aha! talk about asking for trouble! What a crock. Unless, hey, maybe the intent was to make it probable the we would be unable to buy guns...most of the time.
Hey! does this count as an infringment then? Certainly it seems like the system is intended to put gun dealers out of business by making it impossible to predict when they can close a sale...
I thought under the previous rule if the system blipped, you got a pass, since there is no cause to believe you a criminal simply because you bought a gun.
---
They try to pass bills against guns so they you can fight against them and think you are rebelling against the system.
---
Well said. Instead, we should post to Slashdot about how blind everyone is. Revolution through a web form. If only we could be the rebel that you are...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
This is an attempt to control us! Fight the man! Power to the people! The time for revolution has arrived...
Oh well, it's not like I can't go buy a few assault rifles off the black market. They even have neat stuff like frag grenades for sale.
Heh, silly FBI.
Societies with guns don't lower or raise crime compared to non-armed societies. The only real difference I've seen is that criminal violence is much more lethal in armed societies.
I'd rather be hit in the head with a skillet than a bullet.
DC has one of the highest murder rates in the USA. Keeping law-abiding District of Columbia residents from owning handguns hasn't managed much, except to keep them from defending themselves against those who just don't care about legal restrictions, and won't until they're locked up.
pfft! Brady Law schmady law.
Currently, only two percent of all reported Brady Law violations are being prosecuted--that is, 2 percent of over 250 000 people who have falsified documents or attempted to obtain a firearm with a criminal record under this current check system.
Gun laws don't work if they aren't enforced. Clinton and Reno just can't understand that. I hope the rest of you do.
The FBI explicitly noted that their proposals would shut down gun sales nationally if any one of the 8-15 "key" record systems did not return a response. This was a "feature", not a bug.
Ordinarily, any "hit" any of these computerized databases will refer your inquiry to a criminal records analyst (currently being hired and trained) and either slow your approval or trigger a formal delay (or denial). Only one condition will 'clear' a sale: All databases queried, all systems responding, no records found. The regulations are explicit: if any one system fails to respond, no retail sales will be 'cleared'.
The FBI determines which computer systems will be linked, and is encouraging various agencies to get the interface specs and consider participating. The official list includes at least:
- National Crime Information Center (NCIC, a compilation of networks and systems whose exact makeup is not readily available; includes wanted persons, missing persons, stolen property, stolen cars, stolen boats, fugitives, more. It reportedly can handle a million automated inquiries per day.)
- Interstate Identification Index (III, a linkage of individual states' records; one state police department reports it goes down almost daily)
- National Instant Check System Index (NICS)
- Department of Defense
- Immigration and Naturalization Service
- Veteran's Administration
- FBI State Records files
- State Department
Other computer-system operators that have been mentioned as part of the database network include: Internal Revenue Service; Drug Enforcement Agency; U.S. Border Patrol; U.S. Customs Dept.; a Protective Orders database (there have been vague references to such a thing, related to domestic violence laws, federal availability is unclear) and of course, not to forget, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms._____________
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
Every person who legally owns a firearm is maintaining the security of a free state on a daily basis,
... or bankrobbing, killing his wife and kids, spraying bullets around a McDonald, shooting cops, etc...
On the other hand the last time your free state was in danger is... let me check. Well that could have been the cold war, but then your well armed militia would have been pretty useless against the Russian nukes.
So they've made their move. First, they "accidentally" halt gun sales. Then, soon, the U.N. Helicopters move in, and the Russian Army soldiers take over our places of business and worship. Registered gun owners are rounded up, and the American government is subsumed in the new world order. So much more efficient than creating crop failures with the U.N.'s weather machine.
I read your other post. I own many firearms and I use NONE of them for self defence.
...but that is probably less-then-astonishing to you
By the way, I hardly believe hunting, shooting game, or whatever you said, to be a less-then-astonishing reason to own a gun (according to your other post) for the following 2 reasons:
1. The Number of registered deer hunters in Michigan every year is larger then the number of members in the USA armed forces (all branches combined).
2. Do you really think that an individual can be told their reasoning is less-then-astonishing. I'm very glad that YOUR opinion about everyone else's reasoning should be made into law.
Some of my firearms, I don't hunt with. I own them for the sole purpose of collecting. This includes some types of foriegn assault rifles, which I purchased because I thought that they would become banned.
But I also understand that armies are different now and that it has consequences.
It has consequences, but not many (from the standpoint of controlling a population).
Sun Tzu's texts on how to fight with pikemen a few tousand years ago are essentially identical to current military troop strategy. Flanks, thrusts, numerical ratios, projecting power, etc.
While you can take over territory with tanks faster than you could with horse cavalry, sooner or later human soldiers with guns have to control the population, otherwise you won't get the taxes or industrial output of the conquered territory.
Dropping an a-bomb is good to stop the production of enemy tanks but does little to provide you with taxes in the future.
Laser-guided bombs cannot control territory, they can only stop industrial output or destroy communications and logistics.
Chemical weapons are good against troops but have the nasty side-effect of killing the civilians and fauna, which isn't good for business.
The russians had technology grossly inferior to the germnans in WW2, and the French were much closer to the Germans. But france was occupied and Russia was not because the French fought tank to tank and lost, leaving plenty behind for the Germans to add to their inventory. The russians burned their own cities and factories to the ground and retreated before the Germans (the same as they had done to the French under napolean just as successfully). Though they also fought with tanks, the Germansd lost for the same reason Napolean did - there was nothing to conquer but bare land. No people to control, no industry to run. Just land, which isn't very useful.
And their soldiers died of cold and starvation because there were no farms to loot, no citizens to press into logistical support.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Well since Uzis have been illegal in the US for some time (and no automatic weapon is legal, period) there is nothing to stop this now save crossing your fingers.
Of course, if the guy standing BEHIND the guy with an Uzi had a gun, he might be able to shoot UZI guy before UZI man kills the rest of the patrons.
We seem to forget so quicly that many of the most famous gun-related crimes in the US have been *STOPPED* by a law-abiding citizen with a gun, minutes or hours before the police were able to deal with it...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Which is why places like Kosovo are so peaceful and safe for children, I suppose?
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I'd rather be hit in the head with a skillet than a bullet
I'd rather be shot than stabbed. You're much more likely to survive a shooting...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
> However, nobody has ever been able to convincingly point out any 20th century conflict where the availability to guns has, or could possibly have made a positive difference.
Maybe you should read up your history books about a little country named Vietnam where a well armed citizenry did a fine job of fighting of an invasion by the US Military ( and the french and Australians before that). In all fairness the US Military was so hobbled by the US Government they were fighting a lost cause from the beginning.
> If you study the history of Nazi Germany, it is very chilling and makes you feel incredibly helpless.
If you study the history of Nazi Germany you will see that one the primary acts of the Third Reich was to disarm the citizenry in 1936 (or thereabouts). Hitler knew that an unarmed populace would find it much harder to resist the overtures of the state and dictatorship. Hence the group "Jews for the preservation of firearms" which remembers while they were unable to resist when the Government came to take them away.
If you are going to site the "facts" maybe you should check them first.
Chris
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
Full auto, BTW, is all but useless for anything except suppression. Throwing a couple dozen bullets in the general direction of your adversary isn't a real good tactic most of the time.
-jcl
Be a moderator, not a brick.
A well regulated milita should be armed with muskets. That was the purpose of Second Ammendment.
Look at this site.
The District of Columbia has one non-voting representative in the House of Representatives, currently Eleanor Holmes Norton (D).
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
weapons as large as 12 guages rarely fit in asses.
I'm constantly amazed at how one topic can lead to another... the point of the original article was the FBI had a computer glitch and gun sales had stopped. It (naturally) became a huge debate on gun control. Ah /., how I love thee.
Anyhoo, after skimming through all the banter, I guess I'll give me $0.02 (CDN), because I know you all want to hear it.
First off, everybody, please stop quoting statistics. As all /. knows, 67% of all statistics are made up. Either the pro-gun or the anti-gun side can mention any number of statistics that "prove" the other side wrong. "Crime goes up when gun control is implemented", "Most shootings happen in the home by the homeowner", "Water guns lead to ak47s". Give me a break. They serve no purpose other than filling out your comments.
Second, it should NEVER have been the right to bear arms, it should be the priviledge to bear arms. Making it a right means that EVERY Tom, Dick or Jane can own a gun, regardless of their stability, responsibility level, etc.. So any arguement that makes ANY sense that calls it a right is flawed, unless you MEAN to say "I don't care if the nutcase next door owns a gun or not". With a gun comes tremendous responsibility, more than with just about anything else. ANYBODY who purchases a gun should have a background check (whether the government keeps records on it or not is another discussion entirely), a psychological test, and an IQ test! As well, no gun should be sold until the person has COMPLETED a gun-training course, and knows not only how to PROPERLY use a gun (any idiot can point and shoot), but has been trained in safety, care, and responsible use. You don't sell a car to someone who doesn't have a driver's license. Yes, a gun is a tool, and like any tool, shouldn't be used by someone who doesn't know how to use it properly (just ask your grade 8 shop teacher).
As for the arguements that criminals will have guns regardless of the laws, and that the government is going to enslave everybody if your precious guns are taken away. Yes, criminals will still have guns, AT FIRST, but registration will mean that SOMEBODY is responsible for each gun that is legally sold, and if it gets used in a crime, then the person to whom the gun is registered is liable. This would result in people being much more careful about their firearms. You'd find less guns that aren't well-hidden, or locked up, so they couldn't be stolen as easily. You'd find less children with guns, as parents would make sure they couldn't get them. It's amazing what precautions are taken when someone's ass is on the line. As for smuggled weapons, that's a whole other area to crack down on, but in time, obtaining a gun illegally would become MUCH harder that it is now. And responsiblity has to go back further than the purchaser, every gun that a gun store has in stock should be accounted for, every sale and purchase recorded by that store (not necessarily who bought what, but that it was bought), so that guns could be easily tracked back to their origin. As for the government, give me a break, no stable capitalist country would turn to a dictatorship, it's bad for businesss. Do you honestly think Microsoft or GM would allow the government to destroy a free market? NO! That's Microsoft and GM's job :). And that's all I got ta say about that.
Finally, the larger picture is always missed (or at least avoided) in these discussions, that the fact people own guns isn't what causes these crimes. It's the fact that social problems and the makeup of the people committing said crimes are to blame. If the government would spend half the time they spend on debating gun control, and one TENTH of the money they spend on the military on fixing the problems that lead to crime, then the gun control issue would become moot as crime would drop radically. But it's much easier, and more "glamourous" to deal with the problems at the end of the slippery-slope than climbing back up it and fixing the ones that started everything.
-...for every gun turned in, trade them an ounce of crack. -Al Franken on PI
- Guns don't kill people, BULLETS kill people
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.
It's called sarcasm. I doubt anyone thinks of DC
as a safe place.
You could also say, "More nukes, less war"... I mean... no World Wars since nukes came out, and can you think of any war between two nuclear powers? Nobody would ever do it for fear of "Mutually assured destruction"... We'd all be dead... I'd suspect this book really covers the same thing... that theives, attackers, whatever, are very reluctant to attack when they know people are armed... I mean, seriously, wouldn't you think twice about doing a hold-up if you knew that not only the clerk, but the other people in the store also, are armed?
Or we could take the liberal approach and not let facts muddle the issue, and just say guns kill people. So I guess it's a good thing the FBI computers went down and saved us all from a few days of killing.Hmmm... as safe as Washington D.C.... The USA is so far out of the ratings when it comes to the murder rate of western countries. When one of your primary constitutional right is to possess a gun, a weapon, a killing instrument, I don't feel safe to live in a place like that, a place where you need a gun to feel safer. Okay, keep your hunting rifle in your garage. But have a revolver in the glove compartiment? Or better, carry it around everywhere you go. Even cooler, carry it around your waist in Arizona. Come on, times have change. Now the cellular replaces the gun, and it should be your fundamental right to have an internet connected cellular phone.
Which "well-regulated militia" are you a member of, and when was the last time you found it nessasary to make use of a gun to maintain "the security of a free state?"
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Until the second amendment is repealed, gun control laws should not continue to be passed. There is a reason that we have a constitution, and it is to protect those rights that America's founders believed to be important.
Perhaps the drafters of the Consitution were wrong, perhaps the right to keep and bear arms is a foolish, dangerous right; this is an issue we could argue about all day. Most people, however, would agree that overall, the Bill of Rights, and more generally the Constitution, is a very good thing. If we start ignoring those sections that become inconvenient to us, then we set a highly dangerous precedent. What if habeas corpus is the next to go? Or free speech/freedom of the press?
Many of the same arguments against the second amendment (that firearms technology was completely different in revolutionary times) could equally well apply to the first (technologies to convey "speech" have also grown by leaps and bounds).
The Constitution was written to be amended. Before any more of this unconstitutional silliness continues, we must acknowledge what we are doing.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Criminals need to be disarmed, not law-abiding private citizens.
Please explain how you make the difference between law abiding citizen and criminals. Does having speed tickets on your records makes you a criminal ? Then does being seriously paranoid and making plans to kill your familly, but not having done it yet - makes you a law abiding citizen ?
Hmm, I wonder if the Million Mom March might have launched a distributed denial of service attack on the FBI computers? Seems simple enough...just get a million mothers to download the client....
(nb, tounge firmly in cheek here)
The Second Amendment Sisters
Finding God in a Dog
When I said 1/100, I meant absolute numbers, which means 1/10 of the crime rate. While I agree that gun control in Canada could (and should) be much stronger, I think it is still a lot better than in the US. Also, if you think the difference in crime rate is not about gun control. What is it about?
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Everyone knows that if FBI screws up its tracking, gun sales still go through. OThe only thing which stopped is their tracking, which wasn't really any good in the first place!
Guns don't kill people. People don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Try firing an unleaded gun. :-)
On an unrelated issue, anyone know what's up with the DOS attacks on /.? Are they over with? Wired has had a few stories on it that I've covered on geekpress. (There's been lots of news about Slashdot lately, including a profile of Malda and Bates.)
-- Diana Hsieh
-- Diana Hsieh
GeekPress: The Weirder Side of Tech News
The uncertain variable has always been human nature. People get angry, jealous, upset.
I'll agree with you there.
Check out the firearm violence new sometime.
But here comes the demon. I warned you earlier that the media likes to hype up gun incidents well out of proportion.
You may have noticed that the news rarely reports on successful defensive firearm uses. I assure you it isn't because no such defensive uses ever occur. Instead the current media establishment doesn't see fit to report on that aspect of firearms; most major news outlets have a liberal agenda.
More to the point, self defense is a natural human right, recognized by the Bill of Rights. You as an individual can chose not to defend yourself, but it is an enroachment on my liberties for you to deny me access to defensive tools.
YYou should not fear your government. You should fear the corporations, whose power is far greater than your government, and who lack the restraint both of morals and of public opinion.
This post is one I've wanted to make on /. for a while and will probably make again...
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding between US and non-US /.-ers, and this post is mainly to US readers so that you understand some of the puzzled and angry responses you get to posts expressing dislike of government and the restrictions it places on freedom.
As an Australian, speaking of my impression about 'ordinary' Australians (responses, additions and criticism welcome), it is not our government we fear. We fear corporations, and we fear the free market.
At the moment our economy is in a boom cycle (probably at the tail end, judging from our falling dollar), but never have people been less happy with the economy.
Discussion of the free market by non-economists revolves around the negative impact of globalisation on job security and by extension, on happiness and social cohesion. (Remember as a small economy we have less to gain than the US).
In this, we see our government as our protector. When large companies go bankrupt owing their workers large sums, the government steps in and guarantees them money (or they do when the prime Minister's brother was on the board... :) ). When Telstra - the major telecommunications company - announces 10000 jobs to be cut, the government promises that the impact will be minimal and rural workers won't be hit.
Our present government, which is conservative, has had to appear to back off some economic policies in order to exploit this view of market-and-corporations-as-ultimate-enemy.
This is a point of view many posts seem dismissive of, seeming to think it is trivial and silly, thus denying themselves a chance of engaging with and convincing their opponent. Perhaps it is trivial and silly. Perhaps it is not.
Don't dismiss it. Refute it if you think it is wrong. There are a lot of people who hold it in varying degrees and you are not going to be able to argue some of your points of view without accepting that. Just step back a couple of paces in your arguments and argue from there.
Sorry, bad luck. You've hit someone who's studied that period of history fairly extensively :)
France was defeated mostly as the command structure was a mess and society was rapidly falling apart. They had the numerical superiority but didn't have the will to do anything about it. Net result, German troops pushed through. Of course, that's an over simplification, but it gives you the idea.
The defeat in Russia is partly for the reasons you've said but not entirely. Yes, they _did_ practice scorched earth - though more by dismantling and rebuilding east of the Urals - but that wasn't the only thing that won them the war.
Leningrad and Moscow were held in siege for _ages_ and survived. No scorched earth was possible with either. How? Well, they resorted to tactics others wouldn't. Prison regiments, for example. Convicts were sent out as cannon fodder to probe enemy defences. If they returned without being fairly severely injured, they were sent straight back out or shot. Net result, they could get a good idea of German defences - and demoralise them - at little or no cost to their proper troops. You also had locals living in conditions that would have made most cities surrender.
Now, look at the numbers. They didn't use convicts as they were running out, they used them because they could. German commanders were reported on several occasions as saying that the Russian resources seemed practically inexhaustible. No matter how much of anything they took out - resources or men - they were replenished. Which the Germans couldn't do.
Then, the Germans weren't reallly equipped for the war that developed. The campaign started too late, while the winter was nasty. So, they were freezing. We're talking weather so cold that soup could freeze between your bowl and your mouth. They weren't used to this and didn't have the winter equipment so were basically sitting ducks. Cold like we can't imagine, with almost no working guns or vehicles. But the Russian troops were used to this and equipped accordingly . They were observed regularly lyingin ambush in the snow, simply waiting for the right time and knowing the Germans could do nothing.
Then, look at the supply lines. Most stuff had to use trains as the roads weren't good enough, but Russian railways used a different gague to German so they had to build the trainlines out behind them - which is slow and expensive. Then, they got so long that the trains literally had to be left behind. The only way they could make it all run at an acceptable speed was to dump the carriages at the railheads and return, or the time it took to unload them became a problem.
Now, look at the length of the frontier. Simply too long for the number of troops they had to handle it. I remember doing the maths way back and discovering that each company had to handle several miles by itself - a bad idea.
They had to stay behind their own lines, too. The Russians managed a very effective partisan campaign, taking out resources in land the Germans already held. This, predictably, creates a big drain.
Germany won its previous battles by Blitzkrieg - lightning war, literally. Send the tanks across fast, secure the frontiers. Very successful against a relatively small land mass such as Poland or northern France. But it was all they could do. Their armed forces had been established too fast in the 1930s to give them a broad spectrum of abilities, so they'd gone for a Blitzkrieg army. This meant, for example, that their tanks weren't actually that powerful - mostly just fast.
Now, apply this to Russia and it falls apart. You charge at them, they run back just as fast, safe in the knowledge that they can run back for a very long way and, the further in they go, the harder it gets for you to follow them. Also safe in the knowledge that, as a dictatorship, they can get away with things we couldn't have done as the population don't really matter. We have an army which was ill-equipped, insufficiently trained and overextended in the Russian campaign. That army, under that command and at that time, simply couldn't have won in Russia. Whatever your view of their relative technological states, they weren't good enough for that campaign, while the Russian forces were.
Now, look at the modern US. Sure, laser guided bombs and chemical weapons have their limitations - but they're very good at spreading fear. Tanks aren't ideal at population control but they do tend to scare off buses and trucks carrying troops as both drivers know who will win given half a chance.
I'm not saying that the US military could certainly win a civil war against a well organised nationwide private army. It'd inevitably become guerilla war, and Vietnam and Afghanistan have both shown the problems inherent there. But an armed population on the current model isn't really much of a defence, Sun Tzu or not.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Sorry, bad luck. You've hit someone who's studied that period of history fairly extensively :)
:)
Well, but you don't seem to be disagreeing with the conclusion so much as providing more details.
Yes, the logistical issues of invading Russia were difficult (made more so by the scorched earth policy of the russians that I talked about).
Yes, the climate played a huge part (just as it had for Napolean) but the Russians would have won even without that advantage.
It was, as you point out, the fact that the Russians are willing to do ANYTHING to win that has always made them so formidable in war. And that's what I'm talking about -- a populace with weapons (even broken glass bottles and suicide bombers or convicts) simply cannot be defeated by a more "professional" military force with superiour military technology.
Fear and terror areb effective weapons, as you point out. Laser-guided bombs and air superiority have the effect of making people realize things could blow up any time without warning, which is quite effective.
But V2s provided the same terror effect. And what we learned was that it doesn't demoralize the populace, it makes them willing to eat dog food and melt down their false teeth to make bullets. The probelm with employing terror and fear to control a populace is (again, as was pointed out years ago) that fear and hate are very close, and a population that hates you with all their being will kill you, even if it means grinding your tanks to a halt with their own bodies.
For most of history, the Chinese have been far superior technologically than other civilisations, winning every battle due to superior tactics, strategy and firepower.
That is, until they met the Mongols, the most low-tech fighting force on Earth. Although the Mongols made great use of horseback, the majority of their troops were on foot and used nothing more complicated than a club. Very much like the russians, these were people who simply would not stop fighting.
But an armed population on the current model isn't really much of a defence, Sun Tzu or not
WEll then that's what i don't understand -- it's not about technology. If you want to occupy land, you have to have physical human beings with guns or flamethrowers or something to hold it. Do you expect the native population to just mail you tax checks every month? Sooner or later it is the occupying soldiers living in the same city as those they occupy, which makes them very vulnerable, no matter how much technology they have.
We won the gulf war so clearly on because we did not have occupation as a goal. We simply drove in, flanked to the left of Kuwait and squeezed anything that moved to the north of the border. if we had tried to occupy Bagdhad then our soldiers would have had to walk the streets with rifles, just as they do in Kosovo.
Technology changes the process of war but not the fundamental issues of occupying land. Air power, mechanized infantry, gunpowder, the Phalanx, these are all great tools for fighting, but they don't do shit for profiting from what you've taken.
The lesson we HAVE to learn from Afghanistan, Vietnam, the American revolution, the French Revolution, WW2 France and germany, is that if the civilians do not support your military actions you simply will not succeed at occupation and control in the long term.
(Of course, we've also learned from many other places that if the civilians are ambivilent or cynical, pretty much anyone can take control and they won't lift a finger).
So to summarize: Don't ever start a land war in Asia, I don't care what technology you have, the civilian population will decide the winner. But feel free to take over any central or south American country, they don't much care who steals the taxes.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Maybe they just don't want any gun sales going on this weekend. Thats the danger when you left gov't regulate your rights...but then if rights are regulated, are they really rights anymore?
Is that it quickly becomes unreasonable.
Sarah Brady has said publically that the way to outlaw all guns - is to slowly work "small" laws in.
That's the problem - some of these proposals I don't have a problem with - even constitutionally - but what that means is NEXT year, they're used as the starting point for the next round.
Its kind of like somebody shows up, and demands your house and land - you say "No!" "OK, I'll just take this 1/2 of the land here". Next year, he demands all of the rest - and takes another chunk..
This isn't a "Compromise". Its just slow loss.
but what seemed to me to be a reasonable approach (via registration and licensing)
Historically - governments have been "reasonable" about proposing registration - and then at a later point, forgetting the reasonableness, and demanding that citizens (other than the rich and connected) turn in their guns.
I've got a severe problem with the fact that the FBI - _IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE BRADY LAW_ is currently keeping historical data on firearms purchases.
And the DoJ doesn't seem to be doing much about it. This is something _specifically_ denied to the federal government - and the FBI had admitted to doing it in interviews...
*That's* the problem with "reasonable" gun legislation - the lack of gurantees/enforcement of the other side as well.
A few years ago "assult" weapons were the focal point - outlaw them (never mind they're almost never used in crime), and that's the answer. Now they're talking trigger locks as the cure.... (uh, yeah, sure).
Many of the people against gun control seem to be hell-bent on portraying anyone supporting any kind of gun control as wanting to ban all weapons.
And many of the supporters of gun control refuse to believe many of their cohorts want to do exactly that.
Addison
I'll dispute part of that.
A short barreled shotgun, or any shotgun, is good for home defense. A pump action weapon makes noise which may scare an intruder. The spread makes it easier to hit someone in a dark room.
A sawed off shotgun is not necessarily a weapon useful to a militia. though. Due to the decreased range and wide spread, it would not (generally) be a good weapon to use in a team setting. A notable exception would be in clearing a room, but there are other weapons which would accomplish the task as well. Also, in the sort of urban combat that a militia is likely to be involved in, there is a high probability that innocent bystanders will be near. This sort of weapon has little accuracy, and high chance of hitting targets other than the intended one.
Best regards,
SEAL
then what about being shot, along with your familly who happened to be eating with you in that restaurant where a psycho-killer used his M16 ?
I'd rather have to face criminals with knives and clubs than criminals with Uzi. Even with a gun concealed on me I don't stand a chance if a guy with a Uzi comes by surprise and start spraying death all over the place.
Back in 1993 when the Brady Bill was being debated and voted on. We said that after the sunset clause took effect and the national background check was in place the federal government could stop ALL gun sales by taking the national database offline.
We were called kooks and gun nuts and that they didn't want to prohibit firearms ownership or sales, they just wanted background checks. The useful idiots just got in line to support the false promise of lower crime rates.
Now am I the only one that thinks that it's not an accident that this happens the same week-end as the "million mom march". One last point, there is a clause that allows FFL dealers to sell firearms when the system is offline, however most of them are small businessmen who are afraid of the BATF kicking in their doors for a surprise inspection if they do. That's another reason why no guns are being sold.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
...My kids just go to school now to learn how to clean and aim their semi-autos in classes provided by the NRA.
The only tool you need is a gun anyway--the pay scale is an order of magnitude higher than learning something from a book and then applying it.
Wait, what was your point again?
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
We Europeans are fascinated by the US' ability to incessantly argue over the issue of gun control. We have strong gun control everywhere in Europe, together with lower criminality rates than in the US (though the correlation between the two is, admittedly, not entirely clear). Most importantly, I do not think there exists any (non entirely negligible) pressure group here demanding the right to bear arms. Surely if it were a "natural right" of some kind, there would be more protest, wouldn't there? (Or are European citizens so oppressed by their governments that they don't even recognize the need for their freedom any more?)
I wish some Swiss citizen would recall the laws on guns in vigor in the Helvetian federation: because Switzerland is arguably the most democratic state on Earth, its laws being the clear expression, for the better or for the worse, of the will of the people, and since besides Switzerland is usually quite different from the rest of Europe, it would be interesting to know that they have decided (I seem to remember hearing some strange rules about how gun sales to Swiss citizens and to foreigners were very different).
Anyway, when we read stories from the US about a disoriented teen-ager coming in school with a big gun and shooting everyone (or the innumerable variants on the same theme), we Europeans just shake our head and wonder, why don't the Americans do something about this?
There is the question of the considerable reverence for the American constitution, despite (or because of) its age (except for England, that has no written constitution, European fundamental laws are usually post-WW2). The fact that it has remained impressively modern is a sign of the universal value of human rights, assuredly; and our societies are borne of the spirit of Enlightenment (the French have similarly kept the 1789 declaration of rights of man in the book). But is it prudent to let people from way back in the XVIIIth century, be they the Founding Fathers of the nation, make decisions on such contemporary problems as modern criminality? I think the matter requires consideration.
One thing is certain: introducing gun control in a country like the US that already has guns all over the place is very, very delicate.
And claiming a computer problem is probably the worse way to do it.
Just my EUR0.02 (a little below USD0.02, sorry).
--
Ceterum censeo carthaginem esse delendam.
The citizens that live in the capital don't even have elected federal representatives.
It's a federal district. Congress runs it, but there are no DC reps in congress.
Figure that one out.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
I have to register to vote in elections. The question of registration would be the balancing of whatever the government said is the reason for the registration and the means for registering. If it created an undue hardship then it would be unconstitutional, otherwise a balance of interests would likely have to prevail. See discussions on Ammendment One on FreeLaw's annotated constitution site (http://supreme.findlaw.com/constitution). A permit is different from registration (understanding full well that many gun-control advocates are looking for permits not just registration).
As to curtailment of rights, all the examples you mentioned have been curtailed to some extent. Free speech does not allow obscenity, "clear and present danger" speech, libel, reprinting of copyrighted works, hate speech (Beauharnais v. Illinois), etc.
The right to a jury trial in federal cases only applies to offenses that are not petty. Petty offenses includes those punishable by less than six months in prison (Lewis vs. United States). Child abuse victims can testify without needing to face the accused (Maryland vs. Craig) (Note the resoning in this case is that the attorney of the accused can cross-examine but it was a radical departure from the formerly sacrosanct face-to-face confrontation rulings - see Coy v. Iowa). Can't find any IRS seizure constitutionality information either, but searches have been widely expanded from their original. Every ammendment (with the exception of the third and, curiously, the second) have been defined over time and even reversed (see the recent rulings and opinions on the exclusionary rule).
You forgot :
0. How high is the proberbility of some one getting hurt in a crime if there is NO gun involved?
In most countries of the world this is the way it works. It is mostly the US which is still debating over gun-control. Other nations (in Europe for example) have long closed the debate and done The Right Thing(TM)
...only the outlaws have guns.
Of course, it also means that Joe Crackhead will be a little quicker to shoot once he knows that his victim may be armed.
Unfortunately, the criminals will almost always have the advantage, because *they* know that they're about to victimize you, but you may not.
Not that I believe in disarming the population, by any means, just pointing out that having everyone over the age of 16 "packing" is really no panacea.
-- "God, Root, what is difference?" - Pitr, "User Friendly"
That won't work,here in Eastern Ky.,where,like myself,a lot of people have a conceal-carry license.I intent to go to a gun show Saturday to get a new pistol,just for the fun of doing so and make the powers that be nervous. The FBI is presently investigating the county goverment here,as a lot of county officials seem to be tied to some major drug rings.The Feds don't like normal people owning their only protection,since the law here is either non-existent or in cahoots with the druggies. Glitch in their computers,fine.I can find a weapon anywhere,legal or not.It is not hard to do. I personally own enough weapons to start a small war,but I don't intend to. I need a hand held laser,if for no other reason that to weld my old jalopy together after travelling the paved roads here.(and to blast a hole thru the next idiot that cuts me off on Hwy.15.)
Geek Hillbilly
I watched Crocodile Dundee; I know that an Aussie with a knife is dangerous.
Law enforcement officers in the USA are trained that someone with a knife at less then 10 meters can come at you faster then you can draw your firearm.
--
True,but I reload 90% of my shells,and if I had to,I could even make a fairly decent grade of gunpowder.Try replacing bird shot with rock salt in a 12 guage shell without destroying the shell.(good for busting a dog's ass for leaving the big dump at your doorstep.Does not kill the dog,just reminds it to stay home.Also works on drunks,crackheads,junkies,ect.Rough on the shotgun,tho.)Ammo is not a problem.The attitude on usage needs serious overhaul.Tempers are too short-fused and getting worse.(Yes,I can reload the .357 armor piercing shell that can shoot thru a 1970 Caddy from trunk thru to the front cylinder in the motor block.Usually reload this as a .38 special with hollow points,tho.) (Note: Since I have been on this subject,a drunk neighbor tried to bust down the front door.Stopped dead in his tracks when his sodden brain figured out that I would blow his shit away if he tried anything else.He is waiting for the "Law" to show up,hogtied and gagged.Dumb bastard.3rd time in 2 weeks.Got him on a security camera tape doing this.This should put him away for at least 3 to 5 years.'breaking and entering ') Where would I be without a gun right now? More than likely,dead or dying. Gotta go,Smoky Bears have arrived.
Geek Hillbilly
exactly, take a look at Texas where carrying a concealed weapon is leagal, the Crime rate, relative to most other parts of the country, is very low...
why?
If there was the chance that half the people in the bank will be armed would you still pull your gun out and rob it?
absolutly not!
if there was the chance that Joe Pedestrian might be packing heat, would you take the chance and Mug him?
probably not.
but if you knew that the law abiding private citizens inside were unarmed, then there will be little to worry about as far as personal safety if I wanted to commit a violent crime...
all that disarming the public will do, is make life easiar for the criminals.
Chris
Seemed to work fine, I passed the background check ofcourse and I'm getting it in 10 days. Anyway, I can't believe geeks buy this political nonsense people are dishing out these days.
Please protect the 2nd amendment. I can't believe people are actually rallying to 'infringe' upon it, as they say in the constitution. Without the 2nd, what happens to the 1st and 3rd and all the rest if the government doesn't deem those good.
Also, the only people gun legislation hurts are those that are law abiding citizens. Do you think criminals really care about gun laws? nope, but in a sense they do. Which state do you think a criminal would rather enact violent crimes... in a state where law abiding citizens can easily get guns or in a state where law abiding citizens have a hard time getting them and concealed carry permits? Yep you guessed it. If you're living in one of these states, then a gun that someone else owns may be protecting you! How is that possible? The state of Texas which has just brought back legal concealed carry has seen a decrease in violent crime by 6% while most other states have been ~4%. So while you may not want to have a gun, it's still in your benefit to let other law abiding respectful citizens have them. Remember, the only people who get concealed carry permits from the police are those who are upstanding citizens.
The million mom march has a web page and their propoganda that says whatever the 2nd amendment says it's 'irrelevant.' I'm really sorry how mislead they are. They've probably had sons or known other children of parents who have been killed by a gun before and they go and think that guns are bad. Well I'm sorry but inanimate objects can not possess these traits of 'evil.' Guns are tools. That's it. Concealed carry and the 2nd amendment will not end all crime as we know it, but I can say that you will be sorry some time in the future after you've so earnestly wanted to get rid of one of the people's most empowering rights of America.
Ofcourse you've also heard the phrase, 'take guns away from the people and only criminals will have them.' This is pretty true except they're forgetting that the government will also have them, whether or not there is a distinction between politicians and criminals is up for you to decide though ofcourse hehe. Anyhow, if the goverment decides maybe that it's in the 'best interest' of the U.S. and that 'national security' is at risk and they need to maybe search everyone's houses in the state or something like that, it would be a lot easier for them if they knew they were going in to people's houses and tearing them up and disrupting people's live if they knew that most people couldn't protect themselves huh? Well I'd rather the government, god forbid that they should ever decide to do such a thing, would think twice for their own safety before they did such a thing. The 2nd amendment is more about empowering the people so that the government can't bully them around, and I do not want to live in a country where people are 'subjects.'
Here in california it's getting pretty bad though.
rm -rf ~/.signature
I don't know about you, but I would rather take my chances through the courts and quirky political process than count on my neighbor "Jim" the gun owner to "shoot" those federals whey they get out of hand.
...................
...................
...................
Sure it would. You get to apologize and submit to any lunatic with no sense of caution. Oh you wouldn't? You'd stand up to him? Not if you have a family to think about.
This sort of posturing is for adolescents, and is the very reason people should not have guns. Immature dimwits who thinks that someone cutting him off on the highway is grounds for death.
Having just revolted from under a tyranical government, I personally believe...
You just revolted from under a tyrannical government? Cool!
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
> http://www.warroom.com/ausguncontrol.htm
That page doesn't provide much information, does it?
The statistics are nation-wide so I don't think you can compare them to an industrialized country like the US.
I can understand the use of guns on the country-side, it's not really a challence for thiefs to rob a home if it takes the cop(s?) a half hour to reach the house.
I wonder what the results are in a city like Sydney. I bet there's a real difference if paranoid people don't have easy access to guns.
Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong at any of the above statements.
Monkey sense
If owning a gun is a basic right, and a broken computer at the FBI keeps anyone from fufilling that right. Then who's to say that they just couldn't shut if off anytime they feel like forbiding peoples access to guns?
I'm affraid he thought twice - and decided to rob someone anyway. When you are on drugs the risk don't count, and you are already killing yourself with drugs anyway.
You can't threathen someone who has nothing to loose, not even his life. Your AK-47 is pointless.
You're blaming Giulani?? Have you compared the rate of such shootings under his administration with the rate of previous administrations, or are you just joining the Hillary For Senate Campaign of Lies?
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
However, if you want to organise a bit of civil disobedience, what you need are enough bodies on the street - armed or unarmed, it makes little difference. If the government concerned doesn't fold, weapons smuggling ain't that difficult.
Oh, it's just you that feels the need to defend yourself from the government in a bad mood? All an assault rifle is likely to do is make the cops more likely to kill you in the process of arresting you.
So, IMHO, anyone who believes that widespread posession of guns makes any difference to the potential for governmental tyranny, or prevents resistance of that tyranny, is kidding themselves.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Summary of Radio Ads:
- innocent people (typically women) being stabbed/raped/strangled in their homes
- innocent people unarmed
- criminal armed with large body mass (bulk) and knife/baseball bat/hands
- innocent person could not afford taxpayer financed ARMED body guard like the "gun control" politicians
- innocent person could not afford expensive private ARMED bodyguard like "gun control" celebrities
BTW, I was physically assaulted and mugged at GUN-POINT outside the NAS Alameda Navy Base (SF Bay area) in 1993. The local thugs knew "squids" returning to base on foot were UNARMED (easy target) by Naval Regulations (no place to conveniently store a legal firearm). Like they say, doubt regarding whether I have a gun on my person or in my home is a deterent. "S/he 'might' have a firearm, better pick an easier target" Deterance works well (evidence - nuclear weapons & Cold War btwn USSR/US, NK/SK, China/Taiwan, India/Pakistan)
Trolls would be bulky creatures wouldn't they? If one were attacking you what would you use to defend yourself? A firearm perhaps???? No ... I will use a UN Resolution!
Alien with exoskeleton is attacking!!! What would you use to defend yourself??? A high-velocity assault rifle with teflon coated bullets??? No ... I will use another UN Resolution!
"Maintain a questioning attitude"
I believe Juanita
I can just see the next big auction on E-Bay:
For Sale: Uploadable Virus
Federal Government won't pass that gun control legislation? Pass it yourself with this handy little program. A few clicks and guess what? The FBI computer no longer works and no one can buy a gun. So easy, an AOL user can do it!
Bidding Starts at: $42,000,000
The scary part is that someone really could try writing a program like that. We've got people who bomb buildings to get heard, I'm sure there are people who will bring down a computer.
"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." -Richard Feynman
Another thing.. It's interesting to see how pro gunners compare the murder rates of DC (where guns are outlawed) against the murder rates of other US cities to prove that guns reduce crime. How about comparing the crime rates in the USA (where guns are generally freely available to any nutcase) to Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Finland, Sweden or Australia? Similar societies, different types of gun laws and gun attitudes.
Gun control debates aren't something to be ashamed of. People often want to avoid speaking out in favor of the Second Amendment because they're worried they'll be portrayed as lunatics or right-wing extremists. This needs to change; we need to hear all viewpoints regarding this important isuse. America needs to have a dialogue -- a dialogue with itself, about gun control.
Remember the spirit of Chataqua? Why can't we have that now; a place for Americans with viewpoints from all around the spectrum of this debate to speak their mind and respectfully disagree with those from other walks of life. Extreme laws in either direction are not the answer; what we need is calm, rational debate, the kind that Socrates could respect. The only solution that will work is one every American agrees to. It's called direct democracy, and there's no better form of government.
Remember, if you find yourself wondering what to do about gun control, just ask yourself who your real friends are.
Yu Suzuki
Yu Suzuki
Deamcast. It's thinking.
you need to review you reading comprehension skills. notice the comma, that seperates the two halves of the sentence. no where in that sentence does it say only militia members may be armed.
Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, admin@yoursite.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. Apache/1.3.12 Server at slashdot.org Port 80 ---
You misinterpret your Constitution. The right to bare arms is about halter tops, tube tops, strapless evening gowns, gownless evening straps, Baywatch, NPN&P and many other great things.
This is one of the most productive database bugs I have seen. It will teach a whole nation the true meaning of their Constitution.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Someone bought a 22 cal. in Meijer and went out into the parking lot an committed suicide. The
family members sued Meijer for selling a firearm to someone so 'distressed'. I'm not sure how the
case ended, but as a result of this case, Meijer now only carries Blackpowder guns and Air (pellet &
BB) guns. This is very unfortunate!
Clerks at meijer are not theripists. Nor should they be. And being 'depressed' should not be a reason to refuse the sale of a gun to someone. If you really own your own life, you have every right to take it. People that far gone are very hard not to notice, if his family really cared maybe they should have been doing more to help him. Instead the blood sucking leaches sue a store and are now content with whatever settlement they got.
The anti-gun control people have a point. The gun control laws don't do a whole lot since many criminals just buy guns on the black market.
The real way to stop people from getting so many guns is to cut production. Most black market weapons are either stollen from trucks leaving the factories or smuggled in from countries that our government sold them to.
If we limited production to government controlled plants that only made enough for the military (at least until we do away with them, too) and stopped random companies from making and selling guns there would be no guns to black market.
You can tell me how the government will enslave us if we don't have guns, but that's all bullshit in this day and age. The government (controlled by corporations) has found non-violent ways to enslave us. They don't need a military state like they would have in the 1700s.
The government has always regulated arms. It isn't legal to run around with a trunk full of C4 or a nuclear device, now is it?
A gun's primary purpose is for killing. Even more so than dinamite, which is illegal to own (unless you're a demolition company). Knives are dangerous too, but they are neccisary tools in our society. Guns are not. We must draw at line there.
http://overwhelmed.org
FWIW, Kennesaw /requires/ gun ownership, and violent crime there has been amazingly low.
http://www.aimtec.com/rkba/kennesaw.html
It is not only in defense of governmental threats that one requires arms to protect ones self. I don't know about assault rifles and all, but the kind of laws people are talking about have absolutely nothing to do with them.
Someone breaks into YOUR house with larcenous and perhaps murderous intent, you don't want a gun by your side? The Australians are learning right now what complete banning of guns brings about, though you won't hear it in the national media.
Guns WILL remain at large, legal or not. The only difference is that, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.
woof!
Hey -- why didn't we think of this before? What a way to reduce crime and stop the bloodshed!
Well, that is an excellent idea. The Feds can also introduce a virus to shut down DNS servers. That way, no one will be able to download any speech condemning DMCA or showing the source of DeCSS. We can shut down the 1st Amendment without actually passing any laws! We could also 'accidently' have the IRS start doing 'innocent' tax audits of all defense attourneys. That way, they would be too busy to actually write motions to dismiss evidence obtained from illegal searches. We can shut down the 4th too! And we can...
You get my point.
I recognize that a number of people believe that the right to keep and bear arms is not simply unwise, but even morally reprehensible. But if we begin disregarding the Constitution for the public good, simply because 'Those Nasty Gun Companies Have Too Much Power!' They would use the NRA to prevent you from actually amending the constitution to correct this problem legally. But if we use that as an argument to subvert the Bill of Rights, then we open a whole can of worms.
People argue that a majority of people want gun control. They argue that to deny that majority what they want is undemocratic. I will use a counter example to show that the rule of the majority is not necessarily a good thing, when it comes to preserving life and liberty. In the 1950's, Joe McCarthy could conceivably gotten a majority of Americans to believe that it was necessary to jail anyone who espoused support for the Communist Party. Who now would argue that that would be blatantly unconsititutional?
Let's not use technology to take away a constitutionally protected right, no matter what we think about the right itself. If you dissagree, we have a method for amending the constitution. If you can't convince 2 thirds of the people that you are right enough to change it, then you probably aren't right enough to change it.
Now lets all go and arm bears!!
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
A gun has never walked up to me and tried to shoot at me.
You may have a point against differences in gun control from place to place (criminals may move, within a certain radius of course, to places where gun control is greater). But I do not see a case against uniform gun control throughout the country / continent / planet(?).
As you point out, statistics can be made to say anything. Evidently criminality rates are much lower in Canada, which has gun control similar to that of Europe, than in the States, but I do not thing this is significant. I would be very prudent before giving any comparison of any sort, in fact.
When you state "Everyone doesn't have to own guns, but everyone should have the right to own guns", you should be careful: in essence, if some people are allowed to have guns, then everyone has to have one. This is a form of prisonner's dilemma (with defect = owning a gun, and cooperate = not owning a gun). It is a plain fact that people do not cooperate in prisonner's dilemmata unless they are forced to. (For more information about the prisonner's dilemma, read Metamagical Themas by Doug Hofstadter.)
One possible answer is that owning a gun is a "natural right" which should be upheld at all costs, no matter what the statistics say. I simply do not think it is so.
Undisputable Fact: Free men own weapons. Slaves don't.
However you feel about gun control, it is truly bizarre to contend that those who own or sell guns are in no way responsible for the consequences if they put a gun in the hands of someone who openly manifests an intention to harm himself or others. If Meijer cannot take any reasonable steps to ensure that they don't sell guns to such people -- whether because of staffing problems or for any other reason -- then it seems plain that they shouldn't sell them. In any event, if Meijer does not want to get a reputation as your friendly neighborhood deep discount department store where people off themselves in the parking lot, they are certainly entitled not to do so.
The fact of the matter is that the arguements do hold water. I'll agree that there will always be fringe cases, statistical anomolies (sp). However, evidence points to the fact Washington's high crime rate can be in some sense attributed to the strict gun control there.
In the state of Virginia, in areas surrounding Washington DC, where gun control is much less restrictive, the crime rate is drastically lower. Of course there are always other factors involved, we must attribute the lower crime rates at least in part to the difference in gun control.
Say that, for whatever reason, this "ordinary criminal" wants to rob a house. If he is in the area, is he more likely to rob a house in Virginia, where there is a chance the homeowner may have a gun, or is he more likely to take the short trip to DC, where he can be almost certain that the homeowner will not have a gun?
Everyone doesn't have to own guns, but everyone should have the right to own guns, because that chance of gun ownership acts as a deterent to crime.
Josh
Sounds like a very intelligent book. Wish we had that here in Ireland since gun ownership is severely restricted (even most of the police don't have guns) and we have sooooo much violent crime.
Ahem.
I wonder if you're aware that even at the height of Troubles in the North, it was safer in Belfast then in most U.S. cities.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Reality check - most Australians didn't have firearms (through choice) in the first place. The laws that were introduced were mainly aimed at standardising gun laws across the states/territories, and limiting (or removing) access to automatic/semiautomatic firearms. Those laws were supported by the vast majority of the Australian public who, unlike certain lunatics in the United States, believe that it is a far better society that isn't armed with guns.
Don't they? Yours just did. You have unsubstantiated figures - ie., they're made up. I'm going to give you some real figures and what's more, I'm going to provide references where you can further research those figures yourself (oh dear, truth - the enemy of the NRA):
But why stop at armed robbery, with or without a firearm? Murder was also at a six-year low (all categories of "homicide" decreased between 1997 and 1998).
Prior to the introduction of Australia's new uniform gun laws there were a number of horrendous massacres (Hoddle Street, Strathfield, Port Arthur, ...). Since then, things have been much quieter, thank you very much. That's what happens when you take unnecessary guns out of society. Since that time, it's become almost a weekly event reading of yet another massacre in the United States.
No, you will never get rid of all guns; yes, some criminals will still obtain and use them - but overall fewer lives are lost, and that's what the Australian public wanted/demanded. If the United States chooses to keep its citizenry armed, then that's their decision - they have every right to blow the crap out of each other. Australians, however, have purposely chosen to live in (relative) peace; don't knock it 'til you've tried it.
Oh, and the statistical references?
Go to [local city/county agency] and apply for a background check. They do the check and give you a certificate with your name, SSN, maybe even your photo (so other ID by you is not needed when you use the certificate later), or whatever on it that says you're a clean, upstanding citizen.
It's good for 48 hours or so. Show it to buy 1 or many guns. The seller verfies the cert and your ID (visually only, no logging of info). Or don't use the cert at all and let it expire.
This way, background checks get performed. But no one has to collect information from you to write down or relay to local agencies about how many and what type of guns you bought, if any.
This achieves the purpose of backgrounds checks, thus "stopping criminals" as much as the current system does, right? I'll say it again because this is what the left keeps harping. My plan as described above WILL DO THE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND STOP CRIMINALS FROM BUYING GUNS JUST AS MUCH AS THE CURRENT SYSTEM (which democrats support) DOES!
Will politicians on the left accept this? No. Background checks aren't what they really want. That's just a ruse to dupe the public into supporting the mandates. What they really want to know is exactly who owns what, right down to the serial number so that when the bans come later (like they have so many times before), they can show up at your door and demand [banned make/model of the day].
Did you really think only criminals were being targeted?
It _could_ be that there are a lot of guns floating around from legal gun sales which are later stolen, or whatever, producing a thriving black market. Now, the question is, if guns weren't produced in the us, do you really think that there would be a huge underworld gun-manufacturing cartel? Even to the point of hiring some of the world's top mechanical engineers to produce guns that won't blow up in your face?
The right to a trial by jury has been maintained, but note that the size of the jury has been shrinking from 12 to 8 in many courts, and that there has been a general erosion of the randomness of the jury, what with the selection process providing ever more control to the litigants. State-sponsored jury tampering, IMHO.
Ask your doctor if getting up off your ass is right for you! -- Bill Maher
I think the death of seven children who were only 6 years old was enough to push any nation without a high proliferation and fascination of guns to ban them, add that to the fear of the situation evolving into something like the US, and you have your explanations.
I have seen a couple of NRA campaigns in the US, they seem ill-advised, I understand the constitutional rights, but it's extremely naive of them to draw correlations between nazi Germany the banning of guns the UK and the situation in the US, if they have to resort to such extremes to get their message across, it's quite sad.
Each country has their own culture and traditions, for instance I'm quite happy to walk the streets without fear of being shot, mainly because I know nobody else has guns, not even the police, so you have a kind of a level playing field. As long as that situation continues, I have no use for a gun.
I understand and sympathise with the situation US, if every crazed fool and petty criminal has a good chance of carrying a firearm, then I'd want one too, no question about that.
As for throwing over governments, this is a non-issue, I don't think the stability of any western government could ever come under question today. If the diplomatic process failed to the point where the only way of removing a government would be via coup d'état, I don't think anyone would be taking any notice of any laws, let alone the ones forbidding the use of firearms.
Also, you have to remember you vote the government into office in the first place, their purpose is to serve the public, if they don't do their job properly or follow the rules, they can be removed very easy, if you have a strong constitution and laws then the use of force wouldn't occur.
I'm not expecting many people to agree with me here, but there's my 2 cents worth.
IANAL, but I do follow the Bill of Rights pretty closely and have performed a fair bit of scholarship on the issue. In the spirit of disclosure, let me say that I possess three firearms and I enjoy participating in the shooting sports.
The overall intent of the Second Amendment is clear: that the citizenry is meant to possess the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and of the community. This view is fairly universally shared by everyone in the gun control debate, save for those few who claim it only protects sporting purposes. (I cannot grant any credibility to these claims; in all my scholarship on the Bill of Rights, I have never found any hint from any of the Founding Fathers which suggests that any portion of the Bill of Rights is meant to ensure continued sporting activity.)
The real interesting portion comes in how you interpret that original intent. The more militant members of the pro-Second Amendment community (such as the poster I'm originally responding to) claim that all gun control is illegal; the more militant members of the anti-Second Amendment community (such as Sarah Brady) maintain that guns are inherently regulable.
Neither opinion is, in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, worth a bucket of steaming excrement.
The pro-2A crowd fails to notice US v Miller (I think that's the proper cite), where a man convicted of possessing a sawed-off shotgun appealed to the Supreme Court on grounds that it unlawfully violated his rights. The Supreme Court said that it was unable to see how the possession of a sawed-off weapon contributed to the "well-regulated militia" and therefore received no Second Amendment protection.
Sarah Brady and HCI take US v Miller as proof that all weapons are subject to regulation. This is incorrect; a reading of US v Miller indicates that only those weapons which serve no useful purpose to a well-regulated militia can be arbitrarily regulated. In a strict interpretation of the Court's decision, Miller is actually a vindication of the Second Amendment in that the Court comes very close to outright stating that weapons with military applications (such as fully automatic assault rifles, etc.) possess Second Amendment protection.
So. According to Miller, weapons are regulable if they possess no utility to a militia. It's not as clear a victory for the anti-2A crowd as they make it out to be, and it's not a defeat for the pro-2A crowd, either.
That's the most recent Supreme Court cite which addresses the original poster's "all gun control laws are unconstitutional" argument. Now to take the flip side:
The anti-2A crowd likes to forward the idea that the Second Amendment is a collective right; that is to say, that the use of "the people" refers to the State or Nation as a collective whole and not the people individually. This fails both legal and historical tests.
Legally, to interpret the Second Amendment's use of "the people" in a collective sense would force the Supreme Court to interpret every other instance of "the people" in the Constitution similarly. The Court has refused to do this on multiple occasions, and as recently as a few years ago has referred in passing to the Second Amendment as a right which belongs to individuals.
On the historical side, George Mason (I believe) famously stated "Who, then, is the militia? Now it is the whole of the people." That by itself is a fairly clear statement from the Founding Fathers; considering that no-one at the convention spoke after Mason to condemn that assertion, we may assume it enjoyed widespread popularity.
Moreover, national and state militias composed of citizen-soldiers were known to the Founding Fathers. They were referred to as either "elite corps" or "select corps", depending on which authority they were chartered under (ref: Tennessee Law Review. If the intent was to guarantee the national and state rights to assemble armies and National Guard units, the Amendment would have read "Well-regulated select and elite corps being necessary to the security of a free state..."
So the anti-2A argument that the Second Amendment only protects the Army and National Guard units is obviously, blatantly incorrect.
There is still a great deal of litigation going on in an attempt to clarify exactly what the Second Amendment means. For recent Court decisions, I'd suggest you look at Lopez v US, in which the Court found that Congress had overstepped its Constitutional authority by restricting the possession of firearms near schools. This wasn't a Second Amendment case, per se, but it was a clear indication from the Court that it thought Congress had significantly overstepped its mandate.
Also, check out Emerson v US, coming out of Texas, where the Lautenberg Amendment (which strips people of their Second Amendment rights if they have any misdemeanor domestic-abuse conviction or restraining order filed against them) was overturned. In Emerson, a Federal judge found that misdemeanor convictions and restraining orders were insufficient process of law to strip someone of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
OOG!!!! My studly Open Source Caveman. Nobody can get my petrified like you. Oh how I miss you.
I'll always treasure the Open Source CD you gave me to hit my crazed fans over the head with.
Thinking of you OOG
Natalie
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Translates to,
The People have a right to bear arms, because the ability for form militias are nessesary in protecting a free state.
Think old english, its kinda backwards sometimes.
BTW you missed a comma between militia, and being nessessary (Well the guy before you did that is)
"the United States leans towards a free-for-all Wild West where you can buy handguns out of vending machines"
I represent a major gun manufacturing company, and would like to discuss your idea for gun vending machines.
Having discussed this matter with our lawyers, we would like to purchase the rights to this concept and start manufacturing gun vending machines immediately.
Our research has shown an increase in demand for purchasing guns quickly and easily from general public areas. We were already in discussions with WalMart and think this idea would ideally suit the needs of our client. Following this we would like to branch out into cafes, hospitals and high schools.
Our aim is to provide a new high level of hardware quality to the average Joe on the streets, with easy-access and Rapid-Refill(TM) services.
If you have any objections to the name "Wild West Wending" (or "WWW" for short) please mention this in your reply.
*
If you didn't realise this wasn't for real after the subject heading, please leave America NOW.
insignificant sig
Laws against Automatic and Semiautomatic weapons in California didn't stop two criminals, armed to the teeth with illegal weapons, from robbing a bank and then going on a rampage in a suburban area near Los Angeles a few years ago.
Now since a few government computers go down, our right to buy a gun is totally lost for a few days? The second ammendment doesn't say "Right to Bear Arms ... when the FBI computers are up."
Criminals will get guns no matter what. The average gun owner is not a vicious criminal. A gun owner who is responsible and trained with their firearm should be allowed to own any type of gun they want. And we shouldn't be inhibited by computer glitches at any time, no matter for how long.
I'm wondering what Eric S. Raymond has to say about this ordeal. ^_^
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I'll make that crackhead pause a few seconds before stabbing me so I can dial 911. Its like the nuclear arms race, once both countries have nukes we know we can destroy each other and there is no winner. Joe crackhead might think twice before trying to rob someone.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
i always find it funny that the capital of the country which has a right to bear arms in it's constitution, violates that very right.
Actually US v Miller is problematic that it allows a judge to determine what sort of weapon is necessary or useful for military applications when of course a judge has neither the ability nor the knowledge to make such a distinction. This is clear from the US v Miller ruling that a short barreled (or sawed off) shotgun has no military bearing. In fact the FBI themselves have found that the most effective barrel length is below legal limits. Short barreled shotguns are in fact very advantageous for urban warfare, the conflict is in very close quarters and the extra barrel length only enhances the grab factor and decreases maneuverability. Why do you think criminals saw them off?
Now contrary to what you may be thinking I am in favor of gun control. Gun control is being able to fire accurately.
I am from Europe. Maybe that is the reason why I don't really understand the American obsession with guns. I guess there is something wrong with all Europeans since we are all stupid liberals or sth. like that. AFAIK guns are tools to shot. To aim and wound/kill someone. You can't catch a bullet with it or protect yourself from any other harm (shotgun, shrapnel from a granade...). So a gun can't protect you against anything. (Please argue with me if you think otherwise). The only thing it does is to pose a threat to anybody around (kids who play with it if it isn't properly secured, yourself while cleaning or just carrying it around, your dog, you spouse...). My grandfather is a hunter and my dad has a hunting licsense, but hunts very seldom and doesn't own a gun. Both of them, especially my grandfather always told me how dangerous guns are, since (Murphy) everything can go wrong, but with a gun it can be deadly, or at least very harmful if it happens. It can be especially dangerous for everybody if a conflict arises and a gun is involved, no matter if it is yours or somebody elses. A conflict could, for example a criminal who wants to rob you in your house, or anywhere else. The existence of the gun, with the threat of a potential use quickly raises the conflict from a pure materialistc level (who gets the money, jewlery?) very quickly to a deadly level. If the other person happens to have a gun (or any other deadly weapon for that matter) the whole scenario turns worse: Both threaten each others lives. If the other person only has a gun, fine. He is in control, can take what he wants and does not need to raise the conflict to a deadly level. So believe me: A gun is dangerous as soon as somebody hadles it. For protection against criminals we have the police. They carry weapons and are paid to do so. So they get shot at. Me? Forget it! I don't want to get shot! As for protection against the government: I really don't want to argue on that one: GET REAL!!!
"A few million people will not make any difference: for moving and coordinating a million people you need a communication infrastructure that is hard to aquire and maintain: you will march with your SUVs on the Interstate highway? You will use cell phones? Geez: YOU NEED TO FEED A MILLION PEOPLE.
Too many macho guys..."
The notion that an armed populace is useless against a modern army, and only useful as an army itself misses the point.
Remember that the armed citizens are interspersed thoughout all segments of society and the country. Meanwhile, those who would suppress the rights of the people have to live somewhere too. They have to live among the armed citizenry.
Consider this scenario: you are a member of a powerful, modern occupation force suppressing self-government in a foreign country. Now, consider that there is one private gun somewhere for every resident of the country.
How safe would you feel knowing that your missiles won't stop a tiny bullet? How long would such an occupation last? Are you 'macho' enough to be a member of the occupation force?
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Western civilization differs in many ways from non-Western ones. One of the most fundamental ways in which they differ is in the rights (and concommitant responsibilities) of citizens.
These rights and resposibilities have three interrelated - and interdependent - components :
1. The right to serve on, and be tried by, juries.
2. The right to vote.
3. The right to bear arms.
One could easily define a totalitarian regime simply on the basis of these three elements. People are freer to the extent that their government recognizes these rights, and less free to the extent that they are limited.
Indeed, the progress of freedom in human history has been the extension of these rights to greater segments of the population. In fifth century (BC) Athens, for example, only male citizens had the right to trial by jury, only they could sit on juries, only they could vote in the assembly, and they carried the burden of fighting for their city (and had to pay for their weapons). In today's United States, the definition of citizenship has expended to include women and the descendents of slaves, and to a great extent the protection of our laws - trial by jury in criminal cases, for example - extend to foreigners as well (all of these things unthinkable in classical times).
The concept of citizenship itself is a western invention, and it's predicated on a state of tension between the individual and the state. The state derives its legitimacy and power form its citizens, and not vice-versa. Thus the bill of rights does not GRANT citizens certain rights, but rather FORBIDS the government from passing laws that are in conflict with the intrinsic rights of its citizens.
Registration of guns is a necessary step on the road to confiscation, and there lies the path to tyranny and despotism. Twenty-first century Americans seem to be a charmed people, oblivious to the historical aberration that their freedoms represent. Demagogues and liberals are quick to dangle the promise of safety in well-intentioned schemes that do not account for the ugly realities of human nature or the easy souring of governments.
Take the South. Black farmers, given the second amendment, were able to provide a measure of protection to their families and themselves that would not have existed otherwise. Were it not for the second amendment, there would have been many more lynchings and killings of blacks, especially during the fifties.
Or think of times of social disturbance. Our house and neighborhood were destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Were it not for quickly-assembled bands of neighbors, many people I know would have lost the little they had left to looters and thieves.
Guns, ballot boxes, and juries are all parts of the same thing. They all exist to protect your freedom, both from governments and from other people.
When was the last time you saw someone going door to door, turning each knob to see if it was unlocked? Doesn't happen to much; you might say that for 99% of your life, it is not useful to lock your door, and is actually detrimental: Maybe you'll lose your keys and be locked out. Maybe your friend will have left something at your place and will have to wait for you to get back instead of just opening the door.
Do you (or your parents if you're young) have life insurance? When was the last time you died? While life insurance may be useful at some point in one's life, it is in fact detrimental the rest of the time, as you must pay for it.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Are they bogus just because they're not in
line with what you believe?
Strange thing about data and "science".
People only tend to use the data they
agree with.
Go back to getting your facts spoon fed to
you from this liberal media, then. At
least that way you won't have to actually
think.
-Mike (proud member of the NRA)
--- witty signature
"Yo G, shoot that mofo!"
"Chill biatch, I'm still packin' another wad in my musket!"
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
Shouldn't be too hard. All we need is lathes, maybe with a few special attachments. Why should we have to put up with Smith & Wesson's proprietary safety mechanism? Trying to unlock one of their guns is worse then opening up a Word file on a Linux box. Come on, Open Source people, get going!
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The second amendment was intended with a dual purpose. Not a duel purpose as some think. The first purpose was to have a ready force of citizens familiar with the means of national defense. Keeping an Abrams tank is not practical right now, but Israel and the Swiss Confederation still understand the utility of having a citizenry versed in small arms use. The second purpose was to prevent the tyranny of the state from being too easily enforced. The early leaders of our nation were a bunch of social and economic REVOLUTIONARIES. They included Tom Paine who advocated "bloody revolution" about every 50 years to assure the freshness of the American Revolutionary spirit. The Founders didn't really think they needed guns to keep out Goody Parsons from the cow shed, but rather to allow early militias to have individuals experienced enough to be called quickly to arms, and citizens who would be able to defend against the improper impositions of an overbearing central authority. We have lost site of these goals by regarding them as antique. We have abrogated our individual responsibilities by deferring to an authority the interests of which are not always allied with individual freedoms. Individual freedom is something that we should appreciate since we are working now in a medium which gives more freedom to the individual since the constitution was devised and I for one like it that way. Protect those freedoms or lose them as they have in such countries as the PRC and Cuba where citizens aren't allowed guns and the crimes are committed by the government.
"In a civilized country, you don't fear your own government or police."
Germany 1933
Austria 1938
Czechoslovakia (Sudentenland) 1938
Poland 1939
Norway 1940
Denmark 1940
Holland 1940
Belgium 1940
Luxembourg 1940
France 1940
1. Please explain which of the above countries you do not consider "civilized".
2. If these nations are civilized, please explain how gun control laws helped citizens of the nations in the years specified, both for the general population and specifically for their Jewish populations.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
My street cornier homie wasn't complaining about any problems while he was selling me two shotguns and an Uzi. Maybe he did a background check on me during my previous purchases out of his fine storefront in the back of a van. He would surly be offended were we to suggest that he was not following the regulations quite thoroughly...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This must be the first onthread (if not ontopic) use of the goatse.cx link
Don't go there
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Anon Coward writes: "The Associated Press reports that all book sales in the US have been stopped [temporarily]. This because of a glitch in the FBI's computers. Hey -- why didn't we think of this before? What a way to reduce dissent and stop the thoughts had!" Perhaps one day the entire world will be as safe as Washington, D.C. and other officially unlearned zones.
Life is but a mist upon the horizon.
http://www.warroom.com/ausguncontrol.htm
Check out that link to see what disarming the honest citizens has done. Did you really think the criminals who break laws will turn in their guns? Armed robberies are up 44%. Numbers don't lie.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Oh "WHOOPS", We just arrested every computer security expert and linux user in the US because of a "glitch" in our computer system. Yeah friggin right. Democracy and freedom of expression my ass. The Constitution doesnt mean anything anymore, because they can use our own medium against us. Look at how this is working out, my friends: The very medium in which we thought we could always be free (the Internet) is the one thing that is allowing them to take away our RIGHTS. How very Orwellian. I know it sounds harsh, but wait a few years. I pray for us all.
Under Iowa law (interesting fact--yes, I am a citizen of Iowa and yes, this law is still on the books), as an armed citizen of fit body and legal voting age, I am a member of the armed citizen militia.
The last time I had to use a gun to preserve the security of my free state was August, 1998. Someone was being beaten to death by a teenager with a tire iron. I called 911 and grabbed a shotgun. The perp decided that my 12-gauge beat his tire iron both in damage and in range, and he made the intelligent, rational decision.
No shots were fired, and for that I will always be deeply thankful. Most frightening experience of my life, let me tell you. Afterwards I had the shakes and vomited myself into the dry heaves.
You say 'crackhead' like it's a bad thing.
Here's a thought to all the anti-gun-law people. How about doing away with drug laws? That way people can buy dope from the local farmer's market, it'll be cheap, and all the 'crackheads' and 'potheads' won't need to be armed, and won't need to rob people to pay the criminals for their addictions. Criminals who are 'created' by laws that make drugs illegal.
Well, certain drugs. Tobacco and liquor and cafeine are all OK. Oh, and prescription medication like prozac and ritalin for kids, but not dope for kids. Those damn drug dealers!
Mike van Lammeren
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
Be sure to check out Cross Circuit and download S&W Clinton Pacifier to get a taste of what kind of gun Clinton wants law-abiding citizens to be packing. You need to get Shockwave, and unfortunately it's windoze and mac only. Go find your friend with the Windows computer, or something :) You'll be glad you did
You simply cannot have a little gunfree oasis surrounded by a country where guns are commonplace. It simply won't work.
Therefore, DC anti-gun laws are useless without national gun laws.
I will leave it for another posting the pros and cons of gun laws, however.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
and when was the last time you found it nessasary to make use of a gun to maintain "the security of a free state?"
That would be the point, genius.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
Despite the fairly shocking title, it's a fascinating book. In fact, the real conclusion is that guns seem to reduce *violent* crime - but that non-violent crime may even increase in areas where more people are armed, presumably because people who are desparate for cash have to think of *something*.
I recommend the book, even if you plan to debunk the politically-incorrect conclusion; it's well researched, and has one of the broader ranges of statistics ever collected.
The author is John Lott, and he's written also about the ways in which pro-gun-control people have tried to discredit him. A fascinating study in propaganda.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
then all the secret service and FBI agents in DC are criminals according to you.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
What are your chances of being mugged on the street? England has no guns and it has some of the highest petty crime rates there is. Does the rise in home invasion crime scare you? Are you a strict vegetarian? Someone had to kill that hamburger you just ate. Killing smaller animals is the natural order of things. Cats eat mice and birds alligators eat almost anything, etc etc. I'm not afraid of a tool, which is exactly what a gun is. Someone stabs you with a knife, should all knives and anything remotely pointy be outlawed? No you punish the person not the instrument. I bet you're a fan of socialism too, right?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Brit here, for what it's worth.
I understand the reasons why some Americans are so attached to guns, but I can't say I agree.
You'd be hard pushed to find a country with tighter gun control than the UK. Handguns of any form are basically illegal. So, what does this mean? Well, clearly less guns are going to be in circulation and, by definition only the criminals have them, outside military and law enforcement - who, incidentally, aren't routinely armed simply as they don't have to be.
This also means that it's a lot harder for the criminals to get the guns. If they can't get them legally then we're talking about smuggled weapons so it's a lot harder. You have to _really_ want a gun and know who to ask as you just can't get them from an ordinary shop.
Even if the population wants it - which is far from certain - disarming the USA will be a huge challenge due to the massive pre-existing arsenal. But I'd certainly consider it worthwhile and it's not as bad as that. Take away the guns of law-abiding private citizens and you take a lot away from minor criminals, too.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
The language is dynamic, in the late 18th century "well-regulated" was synonymous with "well-equipped".
Ever notice how the other side forgets that?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
In my experience, most of the people worried about Joe Crackhead don't live anywhere near Joe Crackhead. I live in New York, and I see Joe Crackhead on the streets every day. Would I feel safer if everyone had guns? No, because I know Joe Crackhead is out of his fucking mind, and is way more likely to shoot me than I am him even if I had a gun. I'd rather nobody had guns. If guns are not readily available, the odds are higher that Joe Crackhead won't have one, which is much more likely to benefit me than the possibility that I might be able shoot back.
I'd love to strike a deal with you. We'll send you all of our gun prohibitionists in excahnce for your gun owners.
Everyone wins right?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I was going to point out that DC's problems stem from a lot of things other than their gun regulations.
I would have pointed out that Virginia (which is just across the river, for those who aren't up on their geography) had soe of the loosest gun sales regulations in the country at the time DC was the murder capital.
I would have pointed out that while most of the shooting in DC take place in Southeast, most of the hospitals are in Northwest, where the politicians and journalists live (the salience of which point is proved by the fact that in the 80s Baltimore had an equivalent assaults-with-a-deadly-weapon rate to DC's, but a murder rate half of DC's).
I would also have pointed out that at the time DC was the murder capital, its police force also had one of the highest turnover rates in the country, thanks to the hiring policies instituted by the city's crackhead mayor.
I would have further pointed out that assault rates have been historically highest in the South, where gun ownership is highest.
But then I thought, what would be the point? The kneejerk response has already been moderated up to five, so my comments will just get buried.
Ah, well...
Everyone seems to forget these:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
(In other words, the Constitution is supposed to protect rights that the citizens already have, not grant rights to them as the Democrats would have you believe).
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
(Gee, that seems to be all for powerful state governments. Gun control, drug control, whatever, should be in the hands of the STATES! That way, if I don't like the way things are in one state, I can move to another, and not have to move to a different country!).
-Mike (proud member of the NRA)
--- witty signature
The pro-registration advocates overlook one fact: there is registration already. Dealers keep records on all guns sold. If the police want to trace a firearm, they can go to the dealer to find out who bought it, and in fact routinely do so. That's how the Columbine firearms were traced. If a dealer goes out of business, all his/her records are transferred to the ATF. What the registration advocates want is more centralized registration. What they haven't satisfactorily explained is: why? What will be done with this information? As the system now stands, it's difficult to get at the records unless there's a legitimate law enforcement reason. If this data is centralized, how long before it's 'accidentally' released to a partisan white house (of either party) or ends up in criminal hands? As for compliance, California passed a ban some years ago on 'assault' weapons and required those already held to be registered. Perhaps a tenth of the number thought to exist actually were. You can expect similar or worse compliance with any new national law regarding registration of firearms.
Actually, sometime last year, they shut down the system for "maintenance" during one of the largest gun shows in the US. They can easily put gun shows out of business by doing this maintenance on a weekly basis. Ie, every Saturday, during the day, the busiest times for gun shows. However, I don't think they're that stupid.
Your rights are disappearing because the average person is a mindless sheep who is happy as long as this weeks episode of "er" isn't a repeat. Think about how you would want to slowly take control of the population. First dumb them down, sheep are easy to manage, they will do what the government tells them. Second they can't have a way to fight back, you can't have a revolution without some type of weapons. This may sound far fetched but its all part of the move towards a one world government. Its been brewing since ww2.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Don't rewrite history - at least in Vietnam vs US, the Vietnamese were armed by the russian. They didn't bought their guns and grenades at their local grocery store.
The NVA, yes. Which, speaking of re-writing history, you might want to check out a tad, before running your mouth. The Viet Cong, the "real" guerillas in the south were much more spottily armed, many times with less than AK-47's. They did a fair amount of damage - and massive amounts to morale - with Punji sticks (sharpened bamboo with the tips smeared with feces), and other technologial wonders. Mines were especially effective - and those are very easy to make.
'm sorry but I live in Europe, and all those crazy Americans so in love with their guns are gun-nuts to me. A gun sole purpose is to kill - plain and simple. You can't use it to repair your car or to cook. Professing the widespread availability of killing-devices is completely insane.
Europe.. Europe. Oh, right, that's the place where my Grandfather went to save your non-gun-owning asses from those gun-toting Germans, right? Are you from the half who's ass we kicked or the half who's ass we saved?
You're missing the entire point of the Second Amendment. Its to keep the government in line. (not invoking Godwin, as I'm not calling anyone a Nazi) - That's why Hitler's first acts were to disarm (especially Jews) the citizenry.
Unlike Europe, we don't put our leaders on a god platform. Most of us anyway. We got our freedom not via royal decree, but by fighting for it, against an opressive, tyrannical government. (Actually, we're taxed more now than then, and the government has far more restrictions).
Well now they do - so the situation CHANGED. And the 2nd amendment is obsolete.
Typical Eurotrash thinking. "I don't understand it, it must me worthless". It wasn't so worthless in 1914-15 and then AGAIN in the 40's, when England was running ads in papers over here, BEGGING for those guns for their defence.
So, its OK to ask/demand that we supply guns when its convient to you - but call us barbarians when you don't.
The right to bear arms was to achieve a goal - it is not a basic human right like free speech.
Again, you misunderstand. Go read some. The "Bill of Rights" is essentially what any _legitimate_ government cannot do. That was the point behind it. It can't censor, remove the ability to resist, imprison without trial... And if you remove those - then according to the thinkers of those who wrote and signed the Consititution - you no longer have a legitimate government.
Well I think hunting is nut too, I mean which mentally sane human could enjoy killing - even animals ?
Somebody damn well better - its impossible for EVERYBODY to be a vegetarian (especially with the animals unchecked)
Are you a vegetarian? If not. SOMEBODY had to kill your fish/chicken/beef/goat/lamb/whatever.
Oh, so if its a low paying job, that's OK? (Never let it be said that most Europeans are enlightened, class-free people)
Disclaimer: I hunt. If you weren't so insulting about something you know nothing about (and so incorrect as to the math behind it) - I'd be willing to explain why.
Again I live in Europe. I'm anti-gun like 99,9% if my fellow citizens. I've never been afraid of getting shot in the streets - the chances of me dying from a gunshot is so close to 0 it is negligeable. I bet you can't says as much...
Which twice now, we've had to wade our troops over there and fight for - and spend a shitload tax money - mine included - keeping armed troops over there so the USSR wouldn't decide that gee, those pesky European countries are making too good an escape haven.. or have things that we want.
Armed Troops. Gee, Golly. Us Crazy Americans.
They think we're barbarians, and we're STILL helping them.
As for the defense of our free stats, we have armies and nukes, and that's enough, thank you.
Oh, well, in that case, mind paying us for your defenses for the last 50 years? Or is that idea obsolete as well?
Addison
It seems as though timothy has seen what common sense should have been telling everyone all along. People who want to commit crime don't really care whether the guns they use are legal or not...by that time it doesn't really matter now does it? Less guns DOES NOT mean less crime. Perhaps you should look at Texas where I can legally carry a concealed weapon. Since this law took effect, violent crime has gone down. Then look at australia where guns have been outlawed. What did crime rates do there? They shot through the roof (I had heard 400%, but don't quote me on that). Many people who oppose guns (read the Clinton administration and the 'million moms') don't just want 'common sense' gun laws, they want complete abolishment. As it has been pointed out in previous posts, the constitution and Bill of Rights were not instituted for the good times, they were put in place by the founding fathers (who, regardless of background or anything else someone would have you think) were much smarter men than those in leadership today...they made the government and obviously did a damn good job of it seeing how well it has weathered the changes the American society has gone through. I believe that they knew there would be a time the right to gun ownership would be challenged, and it was for these very reasons that the second ammendment was instituted. What does a government have to fear from unarmed 'peasants'? Also, on the so called 'million moms' I would like you to ask yourself this...who *should* be responsible for their children? It seems as though even parents are now wanting to neglect the responsibility of having a child. The shootings that take place in schools were not caused by gun, video games, or the media (as much as I loathe them). No, these shootings were caused by parents who were not responsible and neglected the mental welfare of their children. True, some children do have genuine mental problem, but many do NOT, their problem is that they never learned respect, never were taught the value of human life, and thus felt as if they could do nothing wrong. No, banning guns is not the answer. This has already been shown. While I do not oppose measure to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals such as background checks, restrictions on gun shows, and safety features, these will not end the problem of gun violence. Strict punishment for *any* crime committed with a gun and, dare I say, a real family composed of the father and mother who both have believe in *some* religion that promotes the welfare of the human race and which can help teach a child values for life. This and only this will truly put an end to the violence.
The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
However, if Joe Crackhead gets pulled over in his pimp-mobile and there is a gun in it. The police can't take it under your existing laws. With existing laws, a crime has to be commited in order for the police to take the gun. Kind of too late if someone just got shot, don't you think?
As far as DC goes, the law abiding citizens of DC have decided (through their legislature and elected officials) that gun control is a necessary measure, and crime in DC has been reduced in recent years. Though your idealistic views may be true in some cases, reality doesn't always hold with them.
Spyky
The converse happens.. I guess it's just the Freudian inferiority complex/human survival instinct kicking in, but several studies have shown that you are least likely to fire upon someone you think has a weapon. Even belief of the victim wielding a knife drops the incidence by over 70%!!
I will admit that all of the information I have on the matter came from rather pro-gun sources, but the studies were trustworthy and meaningful.
Yes, criminals will always have that 'edge'. They did before guns, they will after guns. But the one time the robber doesn't know Grandma has a derringer in her mu-mu is good enough for me!!!
.sig: Now legally binding!
First off, the last think I want is a US where only the military is armed. That's an early step down the road to totalitarianism. I don't know where I read it, but it's appropriate: The day the Second Amendment is repealed is the day for which it was meant. Second, slowing or stopping US production would have a minor effect, if any at all, on availability. For one thing, there are already something like 50 million legally privately owned firearms in the US today, and heaven knows how many illegal ones. Secondly, there's an enormous amount of offshore manufacturing. China, in particular, does a booming business in everything from handguns to missiles, selling them all over the world, including a huge number of small arms in the US. Personally, I have to believe that the answer lies more in the direction of enforcing the laws we have. Swift and sure jurisprudence is a deterrent. We don't have that in the US anymore. Then, too, as someone once said (can't remember who) An armed society is a polite society. Do any of you remember the incidents a few years ago where criminals were targeting people leaving airports, especially in rental cars? Well, that piqued the interest of the various law enforcement officials (LEOs), including the FBI and DOJ, too, since some of the victims were international visitors. One part of their investigation was to go into the Florida prison system and interview some of the people convicted of those types of crimes during and before the increase in "on tourist" crimes. Apparently the LEOs hadn't thought it completely through, because they were surprised to find out that it had to do with Florida's liberalization of concealed carry permits. The convicts told them straight up that the tourists were targeted because they were now less likely to be carrying a weapon than a Florida resident.
A few posts from people outside the U.S. are wondering how gun sales work here.
The Brady Bill five day waiting period has apparently been replaced with a computer-based background check. Coincidentally, I bought my second firearm in 6 years last month and was a little surprised by the new procedure. I provided the store with quite a bit of personal info, including driver's license data and, IIRC, my social security number. They made a phone call, passed the information along, and had the result within a few minutes.
Please understand too that the United States is just that -- a collection of states. Each of these states has its own laws pertaining to firearms. Different states have different attitudes towards guns and there is no guarantee that what is legal in one state is legal in another.
I'm afraid the popular worldview of the United States leans towards a free-for-all Wild West where you can buy handguns out of vending machines. It's not like that. We all want to make sure that guns don't get into the wrong hands, there's just disagreement about whose hands are "wrong" and how we accomplish this. The aforementioned instant background check was actually championed by the NRA as an alternative to the five day waiting period (which had no background check at all).
Also, the same restrictions do not apply when guns are transferred from one person to another without dealer involvement. The Clinton administration considers this a loophole because it allows private individuals to buy and sell guns without much in the way of federal regulation. FWIW, my state has some strong laws against making firearms accessible to minors and known felons. I imagine most other states are similar.
The timing for this could not be worse. Given the weekend's planned demonstrations and the Clinton administration's professed desire to pass additional gun legislation, this will get a lot of media attention. I imagine a lot of people will have a hard time believing this is just a computer glitch. I tend to believe it, but I also remember that this same administration was caught "accidently" accessing secret FBI files on political opponents. Ask me in a week if I still believe it.
I'm not a lawyer and not nearly as up on firearms laws as I used to be, so corrections/clarifications would be most appreciated.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Luckily, this has all started to change, and the change is accelerating. DC, today, is a very nice city to live in, if you can put up with the torturous DMV. We're still recovering in some areas. Now if only Congress would recognize that we are taxpaying citizens of this country, and give us Federal Representation. For the Americans reading this: Did you know that residents of DC do not have a vote in congress, despite paying federal taxes? We have one non-voting delegate (currently Eleanor Holmes Norton). Remember in elementary school when they taught you that "Taxation without representation is tyranny"? Welcome to your nations capital.
--
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
... who are rabid about gun control as the solution to all the problems of poverty and violence:
When guns are outlawed, only cops will have guns.
bjord.org
news from the revolution
I think the above mesages provide a pretty good indication that americans are totally fucked in the head. So scarred, so traumatized by their little ol' Revolution, Indian Genocide and Civil War. They can't imagine anything else despite a million counter examples. The occasional posters from Canada, Australia and Europe can only shake their heads in amazement, but ofcourse they all live in dictatorships, don't they. Clearly, with that many guns already out there the average joe american thinks he needs a gun in self defence (against other "criminal" joe americans). "More guns less crime", Washington DC, rated the msot dangerous capital city in the world. How about checking a cupla non-US examples, boys? The gun manufacturing industry meanwhile is dumping millions of weopons into the US environment, once out there they will never go away. Its too late to fix it, the US is a basket case, let them blather on on on about their friggin constitutional rights to shoot themselves in the foot and elsewhere. Meanwhile the rest of the world should take active steps to contain the american problem, like building a huge protective glass dome over the USA to keep them in.
I'm not angry,just pissed that I got interupted in the middle of this.By the way,a friend of mine that happens to be a Ky.State Trooper,told me that the girl this jackass attacked will be OK.Dumbass #1 will be possibly be put in prison for the rest of his life.He was over to have me put Linux into his machine.He loves it.(another convert!YES!!He got tired of constant crashes.) I am not that far from the Tennessee border.I am very peaceful,except where my family's safety is concerned.I might be a throwback to earlier generations,but after hearing what DA#1 did,it just reenforces my beliefs on the subject of gun control and gun ownership.Feel free to contact me on the listed e-mail.Would love to communicate while I still can.(Diabetes is trying to take my eyesight.)
Geek Hillbilly
I hear this argument a lot and it's not true. The reason for the amendment is that we live in a free society. We do not live in a police state. We have freedoms that we have to protect. We do not rely on the police to protect us at all times.
In England, where they don't have the second amendment and have an intrusive police force, they don't need an armed citizenry.
Remember, our criminals are protected along with all the other citizens of the US by the 4th amendment protecting us against illegal search and seizure and the 5th amendment giving us the right not to incriminate ourselves. In England, the police can stop you at any time for any reason, they do not need "probable cause." They can stop you just for "looking" suspicious. When stopped, you must account for yourself. You do not have the right to remain silent. If you do not account for yourself and choose to remain silent, either fact can be told to the jury and the jury can use that as reason to convict you (OJ would be in prison if he committed his double murder in England and failed to testify).
The founding fathers did not like this system and gave us a lot more freedom. With that freedom can the conclusion that people would need more personal protection than the police could provide. An individual armed citizen provides that protection, that protection that the police cannot provide. We have the second amendment BECAUSE we live in a free society and in a free society not all criminals are locked up. Remember, Jefferson's statement that "it is better that 100 criminals go free to lock up one guilty person, than to have 100 innocent people locked up to ensure that the one guilty person is convicted". Because America allows criminals to go free to ensure the rest of our freedoms, we must allow people to carry weapons to ensure their own safety. The second amendment is about ensuring our freedom by allowing for those who choose so to provide for their own personal safety. Our police are not intrusive and will not protect you from all criminals to ensure that you are not unjustly convicted.
Remember that the essential arguement behind your thing is that the Constitution would be a valid document. In the midst of a military takeover, just see how long the Constitution stays valid...hmm...maybe 30 seconds before the first missle strike? Now do you see the danger? The Constitution can only stay effective if 1) Our leaders are incredibly benovolent and allow us to or 2) we have some way of resisting a forceful change. Now ask some of the countries who are under military dictators which *they* think is more likely to keep.
The second amendment says you can protect yourself against evil political forces, not robbers. He's saying that the second amendement, if it's to be respected, means that we must have the right to have enough weapons to overthrow the government.
I think the constitution has stood the test of time well over the last 220 years, except for one little bit. They didn't forsee organized/civil crime or advances in weaponry. Back then, if you were wealthy enough to own anything worth stealing you lived in a palace and had personal armed guards.
Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
"Perhaps one day the entire world will be as safe as Washington, D.C. and other officially disarmed zones."
/. readers from those countries could chime in with the types of laws that they have, and the rate of deaths due to the gun?
Local gun laws are destined to be ineffective. What good is it to outlaw guns in Washington DC or any other local area when there is nothing to prevent you from buying tons of guns where it is allowed and transporting them. Just across the Potomac River from DC in Virginia, you can buy a large number of guns and then drive into DC and sell them. Hard to prevent that.
A better measure of the effectiveness of these laws might be where the above scenario (buying them where it is legal and transporting them) is more difficult. Compare gun crime in the UK with the US. Deaths by gun in the UK are an order of magnitude less than in the US. I have a friend who was going to school in Oxford, and he witnessed a drug bust at the house next door. The police did the whole thing without guns, since the chance that the druggies had guns was remote. My friend certainly felt more safe, knowing that this was the case.
There are other countries where this is the case. Perhaps
during the war, from the americans. Where/when did the american revolutionaries get their guns? from the french, during the war. Where/when did the vietnamese get their guns? From the soviets and chinese, during the war. The others I don't know about, but would assume that the forces fighting against the large power got their armements from another large power, who had political reasons to hurt the other power. That is how revolutions last so long, and sometimes win.
Lastly - the romans never even had guns!
Appreciate the info!
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
1999 saw the lowest accidental gun deaths since 1903.
That was the first year such statistics were compiled. With that in mind we have to wonder the bias of the media portraying the increase of gun violence. Ever notice that they almost never report the 2-2.5 million times a year private citizens ward of an attacker with a firearm? By the way, that's an ATF statistic. We also have to look at Washington D.C. While it is the murder capital of the world only two people went to jail for federal firearms violations in 1998. Two people!
Folks, ever hear of the Hegelian Principle? Apparently it's at work. You synthesize a problem (don't enforce laws) and let crime increase. Then all of a sudden you have the solution (More gun control laws).
No theoretical checks - no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea. --James Madison
No theoretical checks? If Madison meant that a piece of paper cannot infinitely ensure our liberty then what did he mean? Private firearms ownership perhaps?
I ask Sir, what of the militia? It is the whole people... To disarm people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. --George Mason
Mr. Mason was one of the writers of the Federalist Papers and he was the man who wrote the Virginia Constitution, the document onwhich the United States Constitution was based. We wouldn't have a Bill of Rights if it weren't for George Mason because James Madison (The man who ended up drafting much of the Bill of Rights) because he was afraid that future generations would interpret anything not explicitly listed as not being a right. Both men had merit in their arguments. Imagine though if Madison had gotten his way. Would driving be a right not a privilege? Or would we have no explicit rights at all?
And who in their right mind believes that the folks living in the late 18th century weren't armed? It was a fundamental fact of life. You didn't go to the supermarket to buy food. For the most part, a bulk of the citizens on this continent hunted and raised their own. There were 'savages' who wanted to kill you. (Any different from today? I don't think so. And 'fore anyone flies off the handle about the word 'savages', I'm part indigenous myself,Shawnee, so deal with it.
On every question of the construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit maniffested i the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. --Thomas Jefferson
That's right. Thomas Jefferson believed that we should use the spirit of the Constitution, the spirit of men believing that liberty is theirs, endowed to them naturally by their creator, no matter what that may be. So there goes the idea that in the context of the period the founders believed that the only people guaranteed the right to arms are the militia only.
No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. --Thomas Jefferson
Also, please don't forget that dalliance of changes with what perhaps is the greatest document of all time is not something to be taken lightly.
Hold on my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughtout the world. --Daniel Webster, 1851
We've all heard of the herd society, the sheep. Maybe this is why they are...
[The disarming of citizens has] a double efect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroyes the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression.
Just for parting,
The posession of arms is the distinction between a free man and a slave. --Andrew Fletcher, 1695 Discourse on Government
guns are simply tools.
in the proper hands, they do good -- what they are designed to do -- coerce a person to your point of view ("No, I won't let you kill my family. In fact, I kill you before I let that happen.")
in the wrong hands, they are trouble. "I said, "Give me yo wallet, Muthuh Fuckuh". Or, as can be seen in Los Angeles, they make great evidence when the police plant them in and around a parollee's home.
Guns sometimes kill people. Sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way. The question is not whether or not they should be legal -- only a person with a very poor understanding of the world around us would advocate outlawing handguns -- the real question is : "What steps can be taken to increase the percentage of "Good" outcomes vs. "Bad" outcomes?
Because when you start thinking in absolutes, you are using simple solutions to solve a complex problem. And we know where that path leads. Utter failure and grotesque unanticipated consequences.
Unfortunately, the only solution I can see is stiff sentences and long probation periods for handgun offenders. That's all the technology we have right now.
Maybe in the future we can make smart weapons. For example, everyone could have a subcutaneous chip in their neck that could be queried by the weapon. "Does this person have a propensity to crime? A history of violence? Is the target armed? Do they have a propensity to violence? What is the probability that I am being used to commit a crime? What is the probability that I am protecting a good person?" If the proper equations are triggered, the weapon fires.
But human rights and the global situation, not to mention the technology, would have to progress significantly before I'd let anyone put a chip in my neck.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Ever stop to think that maybe the reason the Netherlands has less killings is b/c they have a totaly different society, perhaps one that values other people more then ours does? No that couldn't be it...
The problem being that it's difficult to find a study you can trust (almost all studies are paid for by one side or the other, c.f. Mindcraft). I've seen studies which "proved" that even relatively minor crimes have greatly increased chance of turning lethal in states which have concealed weapons laws.
I know what you mean.. I'm a gun owner, but I rarely believe what the NRA chooses to feed me, and I almost never believe the opposition. I honestly wish there were a non-profit 'third party' that would dare publish non-political studies.. There is far, far too much bull-shit out there on anything remotly political to believe either side.
The old west? Gah, what a total societal breakdown.. It's inevitible though.. If you remove consequences, you remove inhibition. The Spanish did it during the days of exploration, the English did it during the days of commercialization..
Let us not forget the first rule of Tech Support: Most people are stupid. I'd rather not be around a bunch of stupid people with lethal weapons (moreso). If it would thin out the [l]user contingent, I'd give everyone in Marketing a machine-pistol. If they're dumb enough to use it, they deserve to die!! Then again, I'd kind of miss pulling pranks on them, so prolly not..
I'll wait for it to become 'on-topic' before sharing my luser prank stories!!
.sig: Now legally binding!
In a nation governed by laws, who else is going to determine how the laws apply besides judges?
I also dispute your underlying assertion; namely, that judges have no background in firearms and/or military conduct. I know of one Federal judge, one small step below the Supreme Court, who served as an Army Ranger in the European Theater in World War Two and participated in the D-Day invasion. Another judge I know is a retired Navy SEAL from the Vietnam era.
Personally, I think either of those two would have almost ideal qualifications to judge which weapons are deserving of Second Amendment protections and which are not.
(Went white-water rafting with the SEAL in '91. You could tell he was a SEAL... he jumped out of the boat just before the waterfall, just for kicks.)
No, I'm not going to tell you who they are. They both operate in the 8th Circuit. If you're really interested, you can check the bios of all the Federal judges in the 8th Circuit and find out exactly which two I'm referring to.
I'll try as best as I can to answer your questions. Again, remember: IANAL.
.45, I had to present the county sheriff with a copy of my lease agreement (to prove I was a resident of the State and county from which the permit would be issued), my driver's license and passport, I had to be fingerprinted, I had to wait a month, and I was interrogated for half an hour by the Sheriff (he said he just wanted to make sure I could handle difficult social situations without losing my cool). After going through all that, my permit was issued to me--but at any time the Sheriff likes, he can revoke my permit to purchase.
:) I already answered your question in part. To summarize, it is extremely clear that the Second Amendment is not meant to preserve the right of the nation to create an FBI or Army, the States to create State Troopers and National Guard, or communities to create police forces.
:)
Registration of firearms in no way infringes anyone's ownership of a firearm as long as anyone could register a firearm.
The problem is that no other right enumerated in the Constitution requires registration in order for its exercise. The courts have ruled that it is forbidden to require registration to run a newspaper; it's forbidden to require registration to run a church; it's forbidden to require registration to keep the Army from quartering soldiers in your home.
To phrase things in Net terms, registration is an "opt-out" system. It's the Government saying "we're going to deny you this right, unless you specifically inform us that you intend to exercise it".
The Federal courts have historically been extremely harsh when the government has tried these things. If the courts let the government require registration for the exercise of the Second Amendment, then there is no lawful reason to prevent the government from requiring registration for the exercise of the First Amendment.
There are laws on the books requiring permits for large assemblies of crowds. These laws have been upheld only so long as they impose no significant inconvenience and they exercise no prior restraint. That is to say, the permits have to be issued extremely quickly, and the government is not permitted to deny permits to any organization. This is not the case with firearms registration. When I purchased my
That counts in my book as a significant inconvenience and an unlawful Government control over a Constitutionally-protected activity. It isn't at all in the same ballpark as permits for large assemblies.
There was a case recently in which the Court decided that the right to assembly didn't include the right to anonymously assemble (thus requiring large Klan gatherings to be hoodless), and I'm still trying to decide how I feel about that.
So what is meant by a well-regulated militia? It may refer to groups organized by states or communities and drilled for the common defense of the people.
If you'd read my previous post, you'd have noticed the references to "select and elite corps".
Exactly what the "well-regulated militia" means is still being hammered out in court. Check out Emerson v US, coming out of Texas.
Also, the Supreme Court has frequently curtailed "rights" given by the Constitution to "the people". Free speech, rights to a jury trial, rights of a defendant to confront their accusers, unfair seizures, etc.
Not in recent years. Lopez v US put significant restraints on Congress' power to pass law, for instance. Free speech has consistently been upheld by the Supreme Court; the right to a jury trial has never been abrogated, to the best of my knowledge; the right to cross-examine has been sacrosanct. The seizure provisions of the IRS and drug code may be morally repugnant, but I am unable to provide Supreme Court citations which affirm their Constitutionality. I strongly suspect that if they ever go to the Supreme Court, that the Supreme Court will strongly and viciously cut them down on Constitutional grounds. If I were the United States Solicitor General, I'd live in quaking fear of the grilling I'd get from Scalia or Thomas on those issues.
If you're going to rake the Court over the coals for being asleep at the switch, then you're going to have to provide me citations. On the whole they do extremely good work; the problem is that Congress churns out laws by the thousands and the Court can only give in-depth review to a few dozen cases per year.
Closer to you, check out Canada... 1/10 of the US populations, 1/100 of the deaths by firearm. Sure, if you suddenly make firearms illegal, crime *may* temporarly increase, since criminals are not instantly disarmed. However, in the long term, it becomes harder for criminals to get guns without being noticed. Also, ever if you don't see a difference in robberies, you still reduce the "he killed his wife because she saw another man" type of crimes.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Personally I'm of a mind that everyone should be armed and that we should bring back the dueling code. However, guns make dueling both too deadly (Often both parties die) and too easy. Therefore in addition to a gun for insuring that anyone getting out of hand is rapidly dealt with, we should also all carry whatever swords suit us, in case we get challenged to a duel. I think society would be a much more polite place.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Any ideas of what the chance of being shot in Australia vs the chances of being shot in the US. Not of course that this would be related the the ratio of gun ownership.
If you've ever been to Washington, DC, you'd know it's not a safe town. Hardly good for tourism.
There was a even big shooting at the national zoo not too long ago. Some crazed teenager...
Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
I should add to this quickly that most state constitutions are more explicit about the freedom to bear arms than the National Constitution. For instance, my home state of Ohio has in it's Constitution Article 1 sec 8:
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power"
That I think makes the situation much clearer. Here are a few more:
Texas, Article 1, Sec 23
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
Oregon, Article 1 Sec 27
The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power
Pennsylvania, Art 1, Sec 21
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Massachusetts, Article 18
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
I think you get the general idea...although lots of states make no mention of arms..Kentucky and Maryland for instance. And I think it is also interesting that the standing army thing is also including in the same section for many states.
What I'm thinking is that the gun sellers out to be able to sue the FBI for the loss of sale that this "glitch" caused.
If they can't, the laws ought to be changed.
The Natherlands anyone?