Conquer Club

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ma ... unviolence

Fingers crossed they see sense.


Perhaps an american could explain something to me: Why is this amendment so sacred, when, for example, everyone was happy to see the amendment prohibiting alcohol be gotten rid of?

heavycola wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/17/usa.usgunviolence

Fingers crossed they see sense.


Perhaps an american could explain something to me: Why is this amendment so sacred, when, for example, everyone was happy to see the amendment prohibiting alcohol be gotten rid of?

It truly was a right that allowed every citizen to feel that they would be able to overthrow the government if necessary.

After all of these men came from corrupt governments, they decided that by allowing Americans to have guns, it would be another example of cheques and balances on the government.

One answer is that the founding fathers (eg Jefferson-annoyingly for LIberals) believed that (to paraphrase) "The right to bear arms is every citizens last defence against a tyrannous government".
Obviously Jefferson said it better than that.

Which is the best defence I've ever read-after all, if a citizen has to rely on the community police force, funded by the state or the Fed, he has no real control over his own destiny.
Its one of those annoying tensions between individualism/libertarianism and liberalism.
Personally i think enough is enough and that guns should be banned. But then J. S. Mill ( a personal hero) and co. would say: "What right has the government to interfere in a persons right to protect himself.

I suspect it is particularly sacred in the US cos they have a much stronger tradition of anti-central govt, cos they were well pissed off with the one in London.
And southerners prob feel they sacrificed enough of their way of life in the 2nd war for independance.

suggs wrote:One answer is that the founding fathers (eg Jefferson-annoyingly for LIberals) believed that (to paraphrase) "The right to bear arms is every citizens last defence against a tyrannous government".
Obviously Jefferson said it better than that.

Which is the best defence I've ever read-after all, if a citizen has to rely on the community police force, funded by the state or the Fed, he has no real control over his own destiny.
Its one of those annoying tensions between individualism/libertarianism and liberalism.
Personally i think enough is enough and that guns should be banned. But then J. S. Mill ( a personal hero) and co. would say: "What right has the government to interfere in a persons right to protect himself.

I suspect it is particularly sacred in the US cos they have a much stronger tradition of anti-central govt, cos they were well pissed off with the one in London.
And southerners prob feel they sacrificed enough of their way of life in the 2nd war for independance.

You just said that much better than I did...

Surprising, since you're a dirty Brit.

Scummy Brit, old bean, scummy. Be civil for Gods sake

Iv never been to America so iv got no real idea of how it works to be able to carry guns around legally. But that in principle to me is a very scary idea. Wepons are not a good idea in untrained hands (possably even more in trained ones), its just that after you have taken out a gun against someone your intention must be to kill them and their respones if they have one is to pull theirs on you and kill you.
Its easy to say you can kill easily with a gun (just a hand movement) but that is only because of the fear generated by needing to pull a gun in the first place.
To me this law seems like a throw back to very uncertain times for the american country as a whole, when law needed to be enforced with deadly effect. The point of my babblings is to not have people who are capabable of being judge,jury and executioner. With a gun in your hand you are.

Lazy_Pilgrim wrote:Iv never been to America so iv got no real idea of how it works to be able to carry guns around legally. But that in principle to me is a very scary idea. Wepons are not a good idea in untrained hands (possably even more in trained ones), its just that after you have taken out a gun against someone your intention must be to kill them and their respones if they have one is to pull theirs on you and kill you.
Its easy to say you can kill easily with a gun (just a hand movement) but that is only because of the fear generated by needing to pull a gun in the first place.
To me this law seems like a throw back to very uncertain times for the american country as a whole, when law needed to be enforced with deadly effect. The point of my babblings is to not have people who are capabable of being judge,jury and executioner. With a gun in your hand you are.

Better than having your grandma raped by a dude with a pair of scissors.

I would never give up my right to bear arms.

The obvious difference between an amendment stating that people have the right to own (and bear?) arms and an amendment stating that people do not have the right to produce, own or consume alcohole should be obvious, I even bolded the important bit. I'm guessing what the amendments exactly contained, but I hope I'm not too far off.
One is what people may do, the other is what people must not do.

Oh, well, let's hope the US supreme court is as sensible as the Bundesverfassungsgericht in Germany lately when they ruleded that privacy in the electronic realm and the internet is a basic right that the state may only interfer with in cases where other peoples life or health is being threatened. In other words, the state may not take a peek at your harddrive without your knowledge unless you're using your pc to plan or coordinate murders or terrorist attacks.


A ruling along similar lines could be that people may keep guns in their homes for defending it but not in public, or they will need a permit to carry guns in public (wasn't it Florida where they introduced some sort of "preemptive self-defense"? I remember hearing about that a few years back, Floridians could shoot first if they were feeling they were being threatened, even if it would turn out the other person was unarmed, weird stuff), and the types of guns a person can keep might be restricted so you cannot own automatic guns and assault rifles, in short: guns which serve absolutely no defensive purpose at all. If you're being attacked by a dozen heavily armed hitmen and need an automatic rifle to defend yourself with you've probably done something very very wrong already.

Anarkistsdream wrote:
Better than having your grandma raped by a dude with a pair of scissors.

I would never give up my right to bear arms.

I was actually lost for words at the strangeness of that crime for a bit. Reminded me of the film seven though.

I understand the principle of being able to over through a goverment through arms but it misses there point, a goverment only has power through its people and military/police wings. And these armed groups have families and freinds, now think about this if there was a public uprising how many troops would kill family and friends in support of the govermnment.
It is not defence from the government that makes people carry wepons its becuase of other civillians carring wepons for exactly the same reason, its just a vicious cycle.

overthrow, not 'over through'; yeah I'm a grammar nazi at times, so sue me.

Maybe I'm off base with this one, but I think Amendment #2 is big in America because it was one of the original ten. You can screw with the rest of them all you want, but those first ten are sacrosanct. Oh, and the south. They loves killin' 'em some weasel.

Is it OK for people to have knives, or baseball bats? Should we ban them too?

suggs wrote:Is it OK for people to have knives, or baseball bats? Should we ban them too?

No. If everyone had a baseball bat with a knife glued on the end of it, the world would be a safer place. The number of knife-bat injuries and deaths would plummet. Why this has not been adopted as a national policy I do not know.

suggs wrote:Scummy Brit, old bean, scummy. Be civil for Gods sake

Lovely.

HC is right Suggs: It's just like nuclear weapons really. In a perfect world we'd give every single nation on earth (even Iran) a whole load of A-bombs. Then because we'd all have nuclear missiles at our disposal the the probability of nuclear war would instantaneously plummet, and the world would be a much safer place as a result.

Don't you agree? How can you not see the logic of it?

the short answer to the conundrum is that the right to bear arms was historically essential to the vision the founding fathers had of the new democracy. you can bet they are turning in their graves at how it has turned out though. this is the main fallacy in the pro-gun argument as far as im concerned. jefferson would be appalled by what he had created, make no mistake about it.

Dancing Mustard wrote:HC is right Suggs: It's just like nuclear weapons really. In a perfect worl we'd give every single nation on earth (even Iran) a whole load of A-bombs. Because we'd all have them the the probability of nuclear war would instantaneously plummet, and the world would be a much safer place as a result.

Don't you agree? How can you not see the logic of it?

eh?

in a perfect world there would no atom bombs.

don't make a post like that and talk about logic..

khazalid wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:HC is right Suggs: It's just like nuclear weapons really. In a perfect worl we'd give every single nation on earth (even Iran) a whole load of A-bombs. Because we'd all have them the the probability of nuclear war would instantaneously plummet, and the world would be a much safer place as a result.

Don't you agree? How can you not see the logic of it?

eh?

in a perfect world there would no atom bombs.

don't make a post like that and talk about logic..

I believe you missed his sarcasm...

*phew*

ok

i think you'd be shocked at how many people would support that view though, no sarcasm involved..

No American could overthrow his Government by being able to bear arms. This is an oudated and uncivilizied law dating back over 200 years! Scary to think there are still people around with their mind still set in those days!!

The American Government and its military would stamp down hard on any kind of revolt against it. The military's family would be protected and its soldiers would carry out their job rather well knowing this fact

khazalid wrote:i think you'd be shocked at how many people would support that view though, no sarcasm involved..

haha. Well, I can't guarantee the sarcasm, I just wanted to assume.

Guns should be, like banned. the kkk southern americans should hand them in right away.

Dancing Mustard wrote:HC is right Suggs: It's just like nuclear weapons really. In a perfect world we'd give every single nation on earth (even Iran) a whole load of A-bombs. Then because we'd all have nuclear missiles at our disposal the the probability of nuclear war would instantaneously plummet, and the world would be a much safer place as a result.

Don't you agree? How can you not see the logic of it?

I do agree, darn you Mustard. As i said, I'm in favour of banning guns totally. (To me, its a fairly straightforward comparison of the number of gun related deaths between the UK and the USa. One of the few areas in which, no doubt, UK social policy is superior to Yanks).
The truth DOES seem to be that people with guns do seem to use them.

BUT-it makes me deeply uneasy. Becuase (like the smoking ban, which is also completely understandable, but wrong) its more encroachment of power by central government and away from the citizens.
Both smoking and guns should be banned, as they kill people (the ultimate denial of a human right).
Its just that, when they ban/severly restirct/charge for internet use in twenty years time, none of us will have any power to stop it.
Because we gave it to the FEds, along with our guns and tobacco.