PDA

View Full Version : The Right To Bear Arms



herman2
08-28-2008, 01:58 PM
To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
-- Jeff Snyder, Oct 20, 1994

As a Canadian, I may have a different outlook on the American freedoms to bear arms, but I personally advocate for a total pistol ban except for police or military use. What opinions do American WW2 buffs have and why do you feel this way?

Panzerknacker
08-28-2008, 05:42 PM
Is a human right like any other, I am telling this in disregard of any local regulation, the humanity is carring weapons since 30,000 years ago, I dont undestand the fixation of some people against it.

Rising Sun*
08-29-2008, 07:59 AM
Is a human right like any other, I am telling this in disregard of any local regulation, the humanity is carring weapons since 30,000 years ago, I dont undestand the fixation of some people against it.

It pains me to say this, but I'm with Herman. ;) Maybe it's something to do with being one of the elements of what used to be the British Empire, where we absorbed a different view of many things to do with government and individual rights.

If possessing weapons is a human right, why are electric chairs, guillotines, firing squads, and NCB weapons limited to government usage?

Why can't I have them?

Why did America get so upset about the anthrax scare after 9/11? To be consistent with the gun views of the NRA, why didn't the NRA argue that every citizen had the right to bear anthrax? Similarly, why did they get so concerned about controlling aeroplanes? If the response to students going on a gun rampage in schools is to allow teachers and or students to carry firearms, why should any citizen be restricted from getting their hands on the joystick of a plane of any size and loading it with as much fuel or anything else they want to respond to the sort of people who executed 9/11?

There are no rights but those which any society decides exist.

I'd rather live in a society which holds the right of every citizen to life above the right of every citizen to possess a weapon which can take life, and which weapon has no purpose other than taking life.

That doesn't mean I want to live in a society which denies all citizens the rights to all firearms, but in one which balances what is reasonable for civilian needs against the harm that the right to possession of every type of firearm may do.

Nickdfresh
08-29-2008, 10:51 AM
It pains me to say this, but I'm with Herman. ;) Maybe it's something to do with being one of the elements of what used to be the British Empire, where we absorbed a different view of many things to do with government and individual rights.

If possessing weapons is a human right, why are electric chairs, guillotines, firing squads, and NCB weapons limited to government usage?

Why can't I have them?

Why did America get so upset about the anthrax scare after 9/11? To be consistent with the gun views of the NRA, why didn't the NRA argue that every citizen had the right to bear anthrax? Similarly, why did they get so concerned about controlling aeroplanes? If the response to students going on a gun rampage in schools is to allow teachers and or students to carry firearms, why should any citizen be restricted from getting their hands on the joystick of a plane of any size and loading it with as much fuel or anything else they want to respond to the sort of people who executed 9/11?

There are no rights but those which any society decides exist.

I'd rather live in a society which holds the right of every citizen to life above the right of every citizen to possess a weapon which can take life, and which weapon has no purpose other than taking life.

That doesn't mean I want to live in a society which denies all citizens the rights to all firearms, but in one which balances what is reasonable for civilian needs against the harm that the right to possession of every type of firearm may do.

And if the NRA wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, why have they lobbied so hard to have the ATF neutered, so that it is practically decriminalized for gun stores to sell weapons to felons, like, oh...John Muhammad? The Beltway sniper, that used his illegally procured AR-15A2 (from a Washington state gunstore, with no consequences at all!!) as a a terrorist implement in DC...

And why does the NRA lobby for "gun-rights" on behalf of non-citizens that may or may not be on terrorist watch lists? So people that cannot even fly CAN own a firearm? :confused:

mike M.
08-29-2008, 02:20 PM
I can understand people who don't own firearms of any kind thinking its okay to outlaw handguns but okay to own rifles and shotguns, they don't know any better. But when I hear people who own rifles and shotguns saying they think its okay to BAN handguns but their guns are okay,...the only word that comes to my mind is HYPOCRITE.

People who think its okay to ban one type of firearm and not another must believe that its easier to kill people with pistols than it is with rifles and shotguns. To that I say Bull Shit

what's next to ban..Sniper Rifles? Oh..I mean scoped deer hunting rifles, its the slippery slope. You let them ban one type of weapon, it wont be long before them come knocking for another.

mike M.
08-29-2008, 02:36 PM
And if the NRA wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, why have they lobbied so hard to have the ATF neutered, so that it is practically decriminalized for gun stores to sell weapons to felons, like, oh...John Muhammad? The Beltway sniper,

Are you saying John Muhammad was a felon at time of purchase of this rifle? This is what I know about him..

Muhammad, 41 at the time of the shootings, was a father of four who had been divorced twice. Although he had a clean criminal record, Mildred Mohammad, one of his former wives, had filed a restraining order against him. In 1985, Muhammad had converted to Islam, changing his name from John Allen Williams. He was reportedly a member of the Nation of Islam.
Muhammad served in the U.S. Army from November 1985 until he was honorably discharged as a sergeant in April 1994. He was a veteran of the first Gulf War. While in the army, he was trained as a marksman, qualifying as an ďexpertĒ with an M-16 rifle,

Rising Sun*
08-29-2008, 05:43 PM
I can understand people who don't own firearms of any kind thinking its okay to outlaw handguns but okay to own rifles and shotguns, they don't know any better. But when I hear people who own rifles and shotguns saying they think its okay to BAN handguns but their guns are okay,...the only word that comes to my mind is HYPOCRITE.

People who think its okay to ban one type of firearm and not another must believe that its easier to kill people with pistols than it is with rifles and shotguns. To that I say Bull Shit



I disagree.

The difference with handguns is that you can carry concealed.

That's one of the major reasons our police are totally opposed to civilians here having access to handguns (and cut down long arms) except for tightly controlled security guard and pistol club purposes.

At least with a rifle or shotgun I can see trouble coming in the street or a bank or wherever, instead of having someone a couple of feet from me before they produce their weapon when I can't escape or, even if similarly armed, get mine out to defend myself.

Nickdfresh
08-29-2008, 05:51 PM
Are you saying John Muhammad was a felon at time of purchase of this rifle? This is what I know about him..

Muhammad, 41 at the time of the shootings, was a father of four who had been divorced twice. Although he had a clean criminal record, Mildred Mohammad, one of his former wives, had filed a restraining order against him. In 1985, Muhammad had converted to Islam, changing his name from John Allen Williams. He was reportedly a member of the Nation of Islam.
Muhammad served in the U.S. Army from November 1985 until he was honorably discharged as a sergeant in April 1994. He was a veteran of the first Gulf War. While in the army, he was trained as a marksman, qualifying as an “expert” with an M-16 rifle,

Oh, okay Mike, you are correct technically. But you are also being disingenuous. If you know this, then you must know:


License to kill: how the GOP helped John Allen Muhammad get a sniper rifle
Washington Monthly, Jan-Feb, 2003 by Brent Kendall

BULL'S EYE SHOOTER SUPPLY IS A warehouse-sized gull store near the waterfront in Tacoma, Wash. Boasting the Puget Sound's largest selection of firearms and ammunition, the store is a mecca for area sportsmen, who come to browse the latest hunting rifles or practice their marksmanship at the store's 12-lane shooting range. An outside Wall of the store bears a hand-painted mural depicting lions, elephants, cheetahs, and water buffaloes. Some of the store's firearms, however, have felled more than big game.

One such gun was a .223-caliber semiautomatic Bushmaster XM15 rifle, which Bull's Eye received from the manufacturer on July 2 of last year. On Sept. 21, a bullet from that gun blew through the back of a liquor store manager in Montgomery, Ala. (she died in the emergency room soon after). Two days later, another bullet burrowed through the head of a beauty store manager in Baton Rouge, La., who died instantly. Between Oct. 2-3, bullets from the gun ripped through the bodies of Six people in Montgomery County, Md., killing all of them. Over the next three weeks, the gun claimed seven more victims--including a bus driver, a female FBI analyst, and a 13-year-old schoolboy--killing four of them. Finally, on Oct. 24, law enforcement authorities found the Bushmaster in the back seat of a blue CheW Caprice occupied by John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo.

Exactly how the gun got into the men's hands remains something of a mystery. Muhammad was banned by federal law from purchasing any gun because of a restraining order obtained by his ex-wife; his ineligibility would have Shown up during the Brady background Check that gun stores are required to run oh potential buyers. Malvo was ineligible because he was a juvenile and an illegal immigrant. Bull's Eye has no record of selling the weapon, much less conducting a background check on Muhammad or Malvo for it. Bull's Eye employees have reported seeing Malvo at the store this summer, and later noticed the Bushmaster was not in its display case. But the store did not file the federally required theft report. When the store's owner, Brian Borgelt, was questioned by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the federal agency charged with enforcing the nation's gun laws, he claimed not to have known the gun was missing until authorities traced it back to his store. Two weeks after the Sniper suspects' arrests, he filed the theft report with the police and ATF.

This wasn't the first time that Bull's Eye was caught unable to account for deadly firearms that had passed through its doors. ATF inspectors, armed with data showing that weapons used in crimes had originated from Borgelt's store, audited it three times between 1998 and 2001, and found record-keeping irregularities each time. An audit in 2000 revealed that Borgelt could not account, through sales records, for 160 guns. Being unable to account for the whereabouts of even one-fifth that many weapons would be alarming, according to former ATF agents, even for a store the size of Bull's Eye. Moreover, Borgelt hadn't filed personal income tax returns since 1995 and hadn't filed some business tax forms since 1994--this despite $1.5 million in store bank deposits.

Yet despite all the warning signs, ATF didn't shut the store down. It didn't suspend Bull's Eye's license, or put it on probation. It didn't even administer a fine--not one $5 ticket to let the store know that the bureau meant business. Two years later, a $1,600 sniper rifle seems to have disappeared from the store like a pack of M&Ms from a convenience mart, surfacing 3,000 miles away in one of the biggest killing sprees in American history--oh, and one more thing: Bull's Eye is still open for business.

In the wake of September 11, the CIA, FBI, and INS have all been picked apart for failing to act on information that might have prevented the terrorist attacks. So far, there has been no similar call for investigating ATF, even though experts worry that Muhammad--a member of the Nation of Islam who reportedly considered America a terrorist state--may inspire al Qaeda or other terrorist groups to conduct similar attacks with easily obtained sniper rifles.

But there's a reason you won't see anyone investigating ATF: Its failings are the direct result of actions by the Republican politicians who now control both houses of Congress. At the behest of the National Rifle Association (NRA), GOP lawmakers (and some conservative Democrats) have saddled the bureau with so many legal restrictions that it has little practical power to deter sellers from allowing weapons to flow to criminals. ATF could have cracked down harder on Bull's Eye, but its lack of aggressiveness was precisely what GOP lawmakers had intended. Pro-gun-control Democrats could have made an issue last fall of how Muhammad obtained a sniper rifle, but they remained silent in the face of feared retribution at the polls by the NRA. Now, as the minority party, Democrats have little power to investigate anything, even if they wanted to.
...

The Rest Here. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_1_35/ai_97173610/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1)

Nickdfresh
08-29-2008, 05:52 PM
I can understand people who don't own firearms of any kind thinking its okay to outlaw handguns but okay to own rifles and shotguns, they don't know any better. But when I hear people who own rifles and shotguns saying they think its okay to BAN handguns but their guns are okay,...the only word that comes to my mind is HYPOCRITE.

People who think its okay to ban one type of firearm and not another must believe that its easier to kill people with pistols than it is with rifles and shotguns. To that I say Bull Shit

what's next to ban..Sniper Rifles? Oh..I mean scoped deer hunting rifles, its the slippery slope. You let them ban one type of weapon, it wont be long before them come knocking for another.

And these people would be?

Churchill
08-29-2008, 06:17 PM
Here's the thing in America: YOU CAN BUY GUNS IN ALMOST EVERY STORE, EVEN A WALL-MART. Maybe if you couldn't buy a gun at the drug store around the corner, you wouldn't have messed up people shooting every and anyone. If you ban the purchase of guns, guess what? The amount of crime will drop because it'll be harder to buy the weapon used during the crime. If someone has a knife and robs a store, it'll be harder to do so because the shopkeep will be able to fight back and potentially stop the crime while it's being commited. Firearms for all police and military personel are ok, only if they have the guns while on duty.

mike M.
08-29-2008, 06:33 PM
The difference with handguns is that you can carry concealed.

At least with a rifle or shotgun I can see trouble coming in the street or a bank or wherever, instead of having someone a couple of feet from me before they produce their weapon when I can't escape or, even if similarly armed, get mine out to defend myself.



Remember, if someone is out to do crimes and maybe even kill people, I don't think that person would have a problem cutting down a shot gun's barrel and stock so he could keep it under his jacket..Like clyde did of Bonnie and clyde fame. Now we gotta ban shot guns and rifles, cause they can be cut down


Get your's out and defend yourself???? You wouldn't have one, or are you saying they can be used to defend yourself from scum????? :) What would you do if handguns are banned and the guy pulls out a cut down shotgun??? :)

edited to add pic of bonnie and clydes gut down shotgun..looks like I could conceal that.
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/2292/barrowgunro6.jpg

mike M.
08-29-2008, 06:49 PM
Oh, okay Mike, you are correct technically. But you are also being disingenuous. If you know this, then you must know:



I don't know what all happened BUT I'm all for Fining, taking away the license to sell weapons and arresting anyone who sells weapons illegally. And if federal or state agents are not upholding the law fire them...

Rising Sun*
08-29-2008, 06:52 PM
Here's the thing in America: YOU CAN BUY GUNS IN ALMOST EVERY STORE, EVEN A WALL-MART. Maybe if you couldn't buy a gun at the drug store around the corner, you wouldn't have messed up people shooting every and anyone. If you ban the purchase of guns, guess what? The amount of crime will drop because it'll be harder to buy the weapon used during the crime.

I think there's more to it than that.

We used to be able to buy .22s and shotguns in KMart etc and sports stores without any licensing or permit requirements up to some time in the ?1970s, maybe early 1980s, but our gun crime rate was way, way below America's and (ignoring a few rampages by nuts with guns which produced what I think were desirable tighter controls on ownership, purchase, and types of weapons allowed) not hugely worse than it has been since gun sales required a licence for the buyer and permits for each purchase.

Whatever the reasons, Americans are a lot more homicidal than their counterparts in (with the exception of Northern Ireland) other English speaking countries, as the homicide and firearm homicide rates here show. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

mike M.
08-29-2008, 07:01 PM
#1) Here's the thing in America: YOU CAN BUY GUNS IN ALMOST EVERY STORE, EVEN A WALL-MART.


#2) Maybe if you couldn't buy a gun at the drug store around the corner, you wouldn't have messed up people shooting every and anyone. If you ban the purchase of guns, guess what? The amount of crime will drop because it'll be harder to buy the weapon used during the crime.



#3) If someone has a knife and robs a store, it'll be harder to do so because the shopkeep will be able to fight back and potentially stop the crime while it's being commited. Firearms for all police and military personel are ok, only if they have the guns while on duty.

#1) When was the last time you were in WAL MART? The Wal Marts here in California dont sell firearms anymore. There are only a few stores in the Los Angeles area that sells firearms and they are highly regulated.

#2) I guess your expecting all the Bad Guys to turn in the weapons they already have right? What about gun runners who sneak guns in from Mexico to sell to Bad Guys?? If you ban guns only bad Guys will have guns..

#3) If you get robbed with a knife..dont fight back..let them have it..your money can be replaced.. but seriously..what makes you think the bad gun wont have a gun? :)

Rising Sun*
08-29-2008, 07:05 PM
Remember, if someone is out to do crimes and maybe even kill people, I don't think that person would have a problem cutting down a shot gun's barrel and stock so he could keep it under his jacket..Like clyde did of Bonnie and clyde fame. Now we gotta ban shot guns and rifles, cause they can be cut down

We don't take that approach.

We just make it a crime to have a cut down weapon. Which covers just about every bank robber who can't get his hands on a pistol.



Get your's out and defend yourself???? You wouldn't have one, or are you saying they can be used to defend yourself from scum????? :)

If he gets his out first, it's immaterial whether I have a gun or not. He wins. I'd prefer he didn't have access to a gun in the first place.

Sure, crims will always get guns, but here they usually need a decent amount of money to get a handgun or to be in an outlaw bikie gang or other heavy criminal circles. Even if the heavy crims have handguns here, at least they're not available to our average druggie and mugger who usually resorts to a knife or blood filled syringe. I'd rather take my chances with them than a handgun.

As for shooting so-called scum, if they don't have a gun and I don't have one then both of us have a far better chance of survival.

The people I'd like to see shot or wiped out in any other fashion will only ever be shot by other crims, or crooked cops who are just another type of heavy crim, because they move with the big fish and don't bother confronting average citizens in petty crimes.


What would you do if handguns are banned and the guy pulls out a cut down shotgun??? :)

Render him unconscious with the overwhelming smell of the shit that would be flying out of my arse. :D

mike M.
08-29-2008, 07:12 PM
They outlawed drugs here in the Good ol U. S. of A. and look how well that works. My point is outlawing things does not work...my opinion is why not just outlaw criminals...LOL

Check out this pic of Clydes cut down BAR

Nickdfresh
08-29-2008, 08:00 PM
Nobody. Nobody will take my right!
http://www.buckleshop.com/images/b45e.jpg

Rising Sun*
08-29-2008, 08:06 PM
They outlawed drugs here in the Good ol U. S. of A. and look how well that works. My point is outlawing things does not work...

Maybe not completely, but it'd be worse if they weren't against the law.

We don't stick to the speed limit and pay our taxes because we think they're a moral duty but because we don't want to bear the punishment. If theft wasn't against the law, how long do you think WalMart and other retailers would last? Being illegal won't stop some people doing it, but it stops enough to make it worthwhile

Rising Sun*
08-29-2008, 08:07 PM
Nobody. Nobody will take my right!
http://www.buckleshop.com/images/b45e.jpg

I'm in favour of it.

Sure make bear hunting a lot more even, and interesting. :D

tankgeezer
08-29-2008, 08:17 PM
Quote: We don't take that approach.

"We just make it a crime to have a cut down weapon. Which covers just about every bank robber who can't get his hands on a pistol."
It has been for quite some time a felony to possess a "cut down" firearm. There are some 20,000 laws on the books in the United States, that regulate the possession and use of firearms. None of them will stop a person determined to commit an illegal act. There are equal numbers of laws on the books in the United States that regulate the possession and use of drugs. They are no more effective against someone determined to commit drug crime. The point is that laws are only as good as those who are subject to them. More laws will serve no purpose, as criminals will just ignore them as they ignore present laws. Our highest laws of the land are specific. ownership and use of firearms are a right, not a privilege. Not subject to whims, and well meaning appeasers.
For those who reside in lands where there is no right to keep, and bear arms, any type of arms, please enjoy your way of living, and we will enjoy ours. We like it as it is, and do not care to entertain anyone else's notions of how we should live, or how we should regard our rights. Feel free to disagree,but keep it to yourselves.

Churchill
08-29-2008, 08:57 PM
I seconde RS*'s last comment.

@ Mike(I think): If you have a problem with blackmarket runners, build a wall. Isn't that what America is going to do to keep illegal Mexicans out? Because I think I heard that somewhere... Might be wrong, just stating an idea I thought I heard...

Panzerknacker
08-29-2008, 09:12 PM
By the way...I was talking about a more "global" thing not particulary in the case of the US 2nd amendement, even that is a good example.
However the needs of firearms are more or less the same in every country of the world : self-protection, sport shooting, hunting and for the armed forces ( in a wider aspect obviously).

To deny the armed right of self protection to a citizen is a particulary grevious and sinister action, and it happen not in a far middleaged dictatorship but in more modern western societies.

mike M.
08-29-2008, 09:54 PM
.

@ Mike(I think): If you have a problem with blackmarket runners, build a wall. Isn't that what America is going to do to keep illegal Mexicans out? Because I think I heard that somewhere... Might be wrong, just stating an idea I thought I heard...

Good point Churchill, I would love to build that wall, if you can sneak a body through..its gotta be easy to sneak weapons and drugs through.. some here in this country are fighting this idea of a wall for keeping the illegal's out too.

Churchill
08-29-2008, 10:15 PM
Yeah, it's like the Africans in France. They won't stop coming, and we can't build a wall in France... ;)

Flammpanzer
08-30-2008, 08:03 AM
interesting debate.

speaking for germany, one fact might be the most important:

we have a very strict gun-law, but the rate of deaths by gun-shootings are higher (compared to the mass of inhabitants) than in countries like switzerland (where guns can be aquired very easily and nearly every household has an assault-rifle due to the military structure there), austria (easy to get guns, you can even carry them) etc.

only about 2% of all crimes with guns here are commited from people who own these guns legally, all the rest is from illegal guns.

so what would a stricter law or a total gun-ban bring? exactly: nothing.

the problem here are the illegal guns, it is estimated, that germany holds up to 30 million illegal guns (!). so policy has to start here.

jens

Rising Sun*
08-30-2008, 09:30 AM
The point is that laws are only as good as those who are subject to them.

Even if that is so (which I doubt as there'd be no need for laws if the people subject to them were as good as they'd need to be to obey the laws) I'd say that equally the laws are only as good as the people appointed to enforce them.

So far as drug crime is concerned here, corrrupt police helped it flourish, as demonstrated by those former members of our state drug squad currently in gaol, and their links to gun murders.

Not to mention drug affected police shooting people.


More laws will serve no purpose, as criminals will just ignore them as they ignore present laws.

If that's correct, and if existing laws on guns and drugs serve no purpose, then why not repeal them all?

And surrender in the 'War on Drugs', which has been something less than a stunning success so far.


Our highest laws of the land are specific. ownership and use of firearms are a right, not a privilege. Not subject to whims, and well meaning appeasers. For those who reside in lands where there is no right to keep, and bear arms, any type of arms, please enjoy your way of living, and we will enjoy ours. We like it as it is, and do not care to entertain anyone else's notions of how we should live, or how we should regard our rights. Feel free to disagree,but keep it to yourselves.

Perhaps we would, if some Americans (not you TG) didn't keep telling us how we are poor downtrodden fools with no spine who let our rights be stolen from us by politicians determined to disarm us.

When, hard though it is for some Americans to grasp, our firearm laws are the product of our democracy in action.

Worse, some paranoid pro-gun Americans see us exercising our democratic rights in our own country as part of some giant international conspiracy by the 'enemies of freedom' intent on destroying Americans' right to bear arms and shoot as many of their countrymen as they wish, when if fact while we are dismayed by the high murder rate in America we are quite prepared to allow Americans the right to kill each other as they wish with whatever weapons the exercise of their constitutional rights allows them.

What pisses us off mightily is some Americans presenting us as 'enemies of freedom' because we choose to exercise our own freedoms in ways with which they don't agree and which produce results they don't like, and then they accuse us of trying to undermine America and its people's constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms (as if that is practically or legally possible, but paranoia and hysteria know no bounds in this modern version of 'commies under the bed' bullshit). As in this impassioned bullshit from an NRA offcer.


For whichever of the many choices a person makes to belong to NRA, the enemies of freedom -- especially the national media elitists -- have their own excuse to snuff out each of your reasons -- one by one.

If the Brady Campaign or The Violence Policy Center or that phony outfit calling itself "Americans for Gun Safety" ever get their way, they would destroy the right to keep and bear arms by smothering the practice of that right -- one "insidious" step at a time.

No matter what peaceable avenue of gun ownership you personally pursue -- you as an individual -- who only wishes to exercise a God-given right -- you and I are their target.

It happened in England, and it is happening in Australia. Last year, in London, when Wayne LaPierre debated Rebecca Peters, the Australian gun banner who is now the United Nations Gun Ban Queen, she answered a question from a British citizen sneering: "Pistol shooting used to be a sport that was allowed in the U.K., and it is no longer." "I'm sad for you," she said. "I suppose if you miss your sport, take up another sport."

Did you hear what she said? "Used to be a sport?" ... "Take up another sport?" That's what the enemies of freedom would like to say here in America. http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6027

Or this bullshit corruption by the NRA President of our crime rates and the exercise of our democratic rights by the whole nation to control guns in response to appalling mass murders by nuts with guns.


The enemies of gun rights are the same all over the world. Your Wendy Cukier is just another version of Rebecca Peters, who was instrumental in passage of the gun bans in England and Australia, countries whose violent crime rates have skyrocketed since law abiding citizens were forced to give up their guns. Rebecca Peters’ response to gun owners who objected that they should not have to give up their firearms, was “Find another sport.” http://para-usa.com/new/news_releases.php

Does that woman really believe that Rebecca Peters, whoever she is, really swayed my nation to control guns? If so, she is spectacularly ill informed. If not, she is intentionally deceptive, as is so much of the bullshit from the gun lobbies outside my country about what really happened here.

Do some Americans really think that we're so stupid and docile that we can be so easily duped?

Apparently, because we are forever portrayed by the gun lobbies, and notably the NRA, as dumb sheep who meekly followed some international masters of anti-gun conspiracies intent on destroying the fabric of gun-toting American society and the constitution upon which it is founded.

The difference is that while we care about the high rate of murders by guns in America we allow Americans the right to kill themselves as they wish and to have as many guns as they wish. We do, however, resent some Americans accusing us of being enemies of freedom and trying to destroy the foundations of American society by us daring to exercise the very democratic freedoms in our own country that the NRA seems to think can be preserved in America only by arming the country to the teeth.

So, if they're treading on our ****s, I think we're entitled to return the favour.

flamethrowerguy
08-30-2008, 04:24 PM
This goes for Germany also:
Since hunting is not my cup of tea and german law does not allow me to blast some junkie or other burglar trying to break and enter my house there is no use to own a weapon except for shooting as a sport maybe.

Flammpanzer
08-31-2008, 04:16 AM
flamethrowerguy: in general, you are right. but do not forget that we have the "notwehrparagraph". the right of self defence to repell an immediate attack against your life, health and other "goods". in this case, it does not matter if you use a gun or a knife or whatever. sure, it would cause "some" trouble if you blast an apple-thief from your tree with a 12/76, but I think you know what I mean. ;) commensurability is the key-word here.


Paragraph 32 StGB - Notwehr
1.Wer eine Tat begeht, die durch Notwehr geboten ist, handelt nicht rechtswidrig.
2.Notwehr ist die Verteidigung, die erforderlich ist um einen gegenwšrtigen
rechtswidrigen Angriff von sich oder einem anderen abzuwenden.

guess you already know this.

if the case is ever given that my family or I will be in such a situation (f.e. 3 or 4 armed burglars attacking) and I have the chance to wake up fast enough, I would not hesitate to use my gun. luckily, the chance that this will happen, is quite small. but in the end, it is not just a theoretical threat.

jens

Rising Sun*
08-31-2008, 06:41 AM
This goes for Germany also:
Since hunting is not my cup of tea and german law does not allow me to blast some junkie or other burglar trying to break and enter my house there is no use to own a weapon except for shooting as a sport maybe.

Here we wouldn't be able to buy a firearm for self-defence, but if we bought one for sporting use and happened to use it for self-defence in justifiable circumstances it would be legally acceptable.

'Justifiable circumstances' depends on the facts of each case, but essentially it will be justifiable if the use of the weapon was proportionate to the harm offered by the offender. So, for example, it would usually be alright to shoot someone armed with a knife who was advancing on you and getting within striking distance (our police have done it often enough and always been exonerated), but not to shoot an unarmed man trying to open your bedroom window from outside the house.

flamethrowerguy
08-31-2008, 12:22 PM
flamethrowerguy: in general, you are right. but do not forget that we have the "notwehrparagraph". the right of self defence to repell an immediate attack against your life, health and other "goods". in this case, it does not matter if you use a gun or a knife or whatever. sure, it would cause "some" trouble if you blast an apple-thief from your tree with a 12/76, but I think you know what I mean. ;) commensurability is the key-word here.



guess you already know this.
if the case is ever given that my family or I will be in such a situation (f.e. 3 or 4 armed burglars attacking) and I have the chance to wake up fast enough, I would not hesitate to use my gun. luckily, the chance that this will happen, is quite small. but in the end, it is not just a theoretical threat.

jens

In any case one should make sure that the scumbag is dead, if he survives and has a clever advocate you are possibly screwed yourself. Look article 34 StGB, know some real-life examples.

flamethrowerguy
09-01-2008, 09:47 AM
I just read an article in the newspaper saying that teachers at a quite isolated little school (110 students) in Texas (at the border to Oklahoma) are actually allowed to bear arms during lessons by now. According to the statement of the supervisory school authority this would be the only possibility to guarantee security since the next police department is a 30 minute car-ride away. A sad trend...

Rising Sun*
09-01-2008, 09:50 AM
I just read an article in the newspaper saying that teachers at a quite isolated little school (110 students) in Texas (at the border to Oklahoma) are actually allowed to bear arms during lessons by now. According to the statement of the supervisory school authority this would be the only possibility to guarantee security since the next police department is a 30 minute car-ride away. A sad trend...

I'm not sure about that.

If I was a teacher, I reckon I'd have good class discipline if the little bastards I was teaching knew I was armed. ;)

Nickdfresh
09-01-2008, 09:56 AM
It is interesting that even teachers are armed here. But keep in mind that it is a limited number of teachers that had to be vetted and trained to use pistols to defend their students, and that not any teacher is allowed to bring his or her gun to school at these districts.

Rising Sun*
09-01-2008, 10:14 AM
It is interesting that even teachers are armed here. But keep in mind that it is a limited number of teachers that had to be vetted and trained to use pistols to defend their students, and that not any teacher is allowed to bring his or her gun to school at these districts.

Well, if I was a teacher member of the NRA (or even just an Alaskan governor with a room full of moose guns to defend my pro-life support of the death penalty :rolleyes:) , I'd be seriously pissed off that my school board was infringing my right to bear arms!

Where does the Second Amendment say that anyone has to be vetted and trained to use firearms?

Okay, there's something there about a well regulated militia, but nobody in favour of unregulated gun ownership ever pays any attention to that. So, if they're not going to insist on the citizenry bearing arms to support a well regulated militia, it's a bit rough to insist on civilians being well regulated. Or regulated at all, which is the NRA's ideal position.

Surely, equal rights under the Constitution means that EVERYBODY can lug an assault rifle, grenade, mortar, howitzer or ICBM (a bit of overkill, admittedly, but it'd get their attention) into their classroom, whether teacher, student, parent or janitor?

Imagine being the relief teacher in a bad school and walking into the classroom with an M60 and belts around your torso like Rambo. It'd be a quiet day. :D

Cuts
09-05-2008, 10:06 AM
http://www.instantattitudes.com/gifs/bs229.gif

Cuts
09-05-2008, 10:14 AM
Oh, there was no mention of 'keep' in the thread title.

This must be what he means:



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v368/BigPatty/RighttoBearArms.jpg

mike M.
09-09-2008, 02:38 PM
The obvious has already been stated... gun laws do not deter crime. GUN OWNERSHIP does.

Why would a criminal break the law and steal/rape/kill.. yet *magically* obey gun laws? Someone please 'splain that to me.

Nickdfresh
09-09-2008, 07:09 PM
Then why do burglars often target gun owner's homes to steal their firearms?

tankgeezer
09-09-2008, 08:16 PM
Then why do burglars often target gun owner's homes to steal their firearms?
Because this wasnt parked in the driveway,,,

Rising Sun*
09-09-2008, 08:32 PM
Because this wasnt parked in the driveway,,,

It was, but the burglars stole it. :D

Rising Sun*
09-09-2008, 08:33 PM
The obvious has already been stated... gun laws do not deter crime. GUN OWNERSHIP does.

If gun ownership deters crime, why do criminals who own guns commit crimes?

mike M.
09-09-2008, 09:20 PM
Then why do burglars often target gun owner's homes to steal their firearms?

I can see it now...criminals driving around looking for the big sign that says.."unlocked firearms inside" Hurry no one is home. I'm sure most of the time when a scum bag steals a firearm from a home its just luck. Responsible owners should have their firearms secured.

ww11freak34
09-09-2008, 09:26 PM
yah they should ban then and only let cops us them

ww11freak34
09-09-2008, 09:32 PM
lots more people are died cause guns they need to ban them from the streets

mike M.
09-09-2008, 10:13 PM
yah they should ban then and only let cops us them

Welcome to the forum WWIIfreak..

If firearms are banned..WHY would the cops need guns? If guns are not an effective means of self-defense, why would the police carry them?

tankgeezer
09-09-2008, 11:11 PM
If gun ownership deters crime, why do criminals who own guns commit crimes?
I dunno, because they are stupid? and usually, they employ their weapons against other criminals when making deals of the sort criminals make.
And police having guns is not too comforting either, in many large metro areas, the cops are at least in part, as crooked as the goons.
This is another unanswerable thread, there will never be a conclusion to it, Each country has their way, and they are blessed,and welcome to what they choose for themselves. That goes for us here in the U.S. as well. we have it our way, and believe that free people must take the down side of freedom along with the up side of it. Which is why the majority of laws governing civil behavior act upon those who violate the laws, not those who are in harmony with it. We would rather allow a guilty person to go free, than to wrongly convict an innocent person. Now, off i go,, I have to gas up my tank,,,:)

Cuts
09-10-2008, 03:35 AM
lots more people are died cause guns they need to ban them from the streets

So if large numbers of people die due to others' use of an inanimate object, the objects concerned should be banned, right ?

Major Walter Schmidt
09-10-2008, 09:26 AM
yes. Look at Japan for example.

mike M.
09-10-2008, 12:29 PM
I don't think I will change any minds here about firearms ownership and really dont want to but maybe these videos will enlighten some of you to the way the average American thinks about their guns. Take a 1/2 hour and watch this and in my opinion it will give you an insight into the American experience of firearm ownership.

I miss Charles...RIP

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lULr1p4DZh8

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFRx-QoIKBM&feature=related

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwH4oZOA8YY&feature=related

tankgeezer
09-10-2008, 12:37 PM
So if large numbers of people die due to others' use of an inanimate object, the objects concerned should be banned, right ?

NO,it means that those people who misuse inanimate objects, what ever they may be, knives, cars, crowbars (or the favorite murder weapon of Chicago, the claw hammer) to commit crimes, particularly crimes involving violence will be "Banned"as they are the weapon, the object is just an end effector. And to have them placed in an appropriate facility for many years to enjoy the company of many others who feel as they do.

tankgeezer
09-10-2008, 01:46 PM
Well guys, I just spent a few minutes with my firearms, and spoke to them in a most unflattering manner, questioned their parentage, called them all manner of foul names,, they didnt do anything, just sat there, like a reasonable person would expect inanimate objects to do (or not do) . So, I guess that leaves only the the human who took up the firearm to blame for whatever mayhem would ensue.
People need to stop blaming things for the actions created by other people.
and in case there is a problem in translation, it is not now legal (in most places in the U.S. ) to carry a concealed weapon in public without a license or permit issued by their local authorities. So to clarify, guns are in most all cases, already banned from the streets in the U.S. (no matter what the media, and old tv shows may picture.)

tankgeezer
09-10-2008, 02:58 PM
Well, if I was a teacher member of the NRA (or even just an Alaskan governor with a room full of moose guns to defend my pro-life support of the death penalty :rolleyes:) , I'd be seriously pissed off that my school board was infringing my right to bear arms!

Where does the Second Amendment say that anyone has to be vetted and trained to use firearms?

Okay, there's something there about a well regulated militia, but nobody in favour of unregulated gun ownership ever pays any attention to that. So, if they're not going to insist on the citizenry bearing arms to support a well regulated militia, it's a bit rough to insist on civilians being well regulated. Or regulated at all, which is the NRA's ideal position.

Surely, equal rights under the Constitution means that EVERYBODY can lug an assault rifle, grenade, mortar, howitzer or ICBM (a bit of overkill, admittedly, but it'd get their attention) into their classroom, whether teacher, student, parent or janitor?

Imagine being the relief teacher in a bad school and walking into the classroom with an M60 and belts around your torso like Rambo. It'd be a quiet day. :D

Just to clarify, The text of the second amendment says," 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." This means, that since any state of our grand Republic wishing to retain its freedom against any enemy foreign, or domestic, may need to raise a militia in order to protect itself, that its citizens will need to personally possess weapons with which to repel any incursion. This goes further to the point that the citizenry must be able to possess such weaponry as makes them equal,if not superior to any foreseeable threat.
Since the national Guard, is supplied, and equipped by the Federal Gov't. the States may not be able to depend on it for help, should the threat arise from within the Federal Gov't. The State(s) would be on their own to mobilize a citizen militia to protect itself. (themselves).
The term well regulated has been misinterpreted to mean "controlled" ie, rules, and regulations, but it really means to be well equipped and able to be organized sufficiently to get the job done.
The National Guard is not the militia referred to in this amendment, as the National Guard may be co-opted by the Federal Gov't. And because there was no National Guard when the second amendment was written. It was assumed that in dire circumstances, the States citizens would have to fend for themselves, with whatever equipment they may individually possess.

pdf27
09-10-2008, 04:12 PM
Just to clarify, The text of the second amendment says," 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." This means, that since any state of our grand Republic wishing to retain its freedom against any enemy foreign, or domestic, may need to raise a militia in order to protect itself, that its citizens will need to personally possess weapons with which to repel any incursion. This goes further to the point that the citizenry must be able to possess such weaponry as makes them equal,if not superior to any foreseeable threat.
Not getting into whether or not firearms should be legal, but the whole concept of a popular militia being able to meaningfully contribute to the security of a modern state is rubbish.
The only people to make this halfway work are the Swiss, and even then everyone does a fairly substantial amount of initial training, annual refresher training, and the Swiss war plan is essentially to abandon 90% of the country and defend a few passes which are essentially all anyone will want from Switzerland anyway. In the case of the US, it's a rather pernicious myth dating back to the idea that the Minutemen were actually an effective military force.

Rising Sun*
09-10-2008, 06:10 PM
This means, that since any state of our grand Republic wishing to retain its freedom against any enemy foreign, or domestic, ...

... should the threat arise from within the Federal Gov't. The State(s) would be on their own to mobilize a citizen militia to protect itself. (themselves). .

The need for guns to protect themselves against their own national government is often put forward by Americans opposed to gun control.

I've discussed that with plenty of people down here. Like me, most are current or former gun owners and sports shooters who aren't opposed to gun ownership per se, but who support our governments' attempts to regulate gun ownership to minimise gun homicides. We are all mystified by the prevalence of the belief among Americans that they are at risk from their own national government and need to be armed to respond to it.

My knowledge of American history is limited to the major events, but I can't think of any occasion where the national government engaged in anything that could justify its citizens taking up arms against it. Was there such an event?

How do you get around the problem that citizens taking up arms against a lawfully constituted national government would normally be regarded as a rebellion entitling the government to use armed force against the rebels?

What sort of situations, of a realistic rather than fanciful nature, could arise that would make it lawful for citizens to take up arms against the federal government?

Isn't there a risk that a group of citizens or a state aligned to particular political or economic interests could take up arms against the federal government to pursue their sectional interests, rather than responding to a genuine threat to all Americans? An example could be people who were opposed to FDR's New Deal.

What about a situation which could result in the sort of people many gun owners dislike taking up arms against a federal government which turned on them? A perfect example would be the anti-war movement taking up arms after the federal government used armed force against unarmed citizens at Kent State University during the Vietnam War.

Rising Sun*
09-10-2008, 06:18 PM
Not getting into whether or not firearms should be legal, but the whole concept of a popular militia being able to meaningfully contribute to the security of a modern state is rubbish.

That's true, but it doesn't mean that armed citizens can't respond with some effect to national forces in an effort to gain their objectives, as happened in, for example, Northern Ireland.

Still, the best any popular movement could do against the forces of any modern state like America or Britain would be a guerrilla war, with no prospect of success as long as the armed forces remained loyal to the national government.

tankgeezer
09-10-2008, 08:02 PM
Well, though others may disagree, its not Rubbish to us,and since it is our land, and the States hold the power over the Fed, the States decide when and if ever to organize a militia. The U.S. is not a Democracy, it is a Republic, having a foundation of laws that no one is above. (including the Federal gov't) The Federal Gov't is constituted with only so much power, and is the servant of the States, not the boss of them. (though they sometimes forget that.) It is our claim of right to own firearms, not a boon granted by any potentate on a whimsical day. The Gov't of the U.S. is not the supreme dicision maker, it is the people, citizens of the U.S. not politicians, who are the true boss. If at some point the people of the U.S. decide to forcibly oppose the Federal Gov't they can, as they are the gov't, and will as they can protect themselves. This is a strange idea to those not citizens, but it is our way, our chosen way, our rightful way. No one else has to agree, or do as we do, thats your own business. But do leave us to ours.
It is not anyones thought that there will be a time when it will happen, but the founding Fathers provided for the possibility of it happening, and this is the reason why We the People are rightfully able if needed, to act against a rouge Federal gov't.
Those men who signed the Declaration of Independance, and the Constitution of the United States, were for the most part born in other places. They had seen for themselves the things a gov't can be capable of, so it was with this in mind that the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution were painstakingly crafted to ensure that it was not possible to enslave the nation, and should the attempt be made, that the citizens had the means to resist.
As a people, Americans are bluntly unconcerned with what others think of us, and our way of life.

Major Walter Schmidt
09-10-2008, 09:31 PM
isnt it much easier to change objeckts than people?

tankgeezer
09-10-2008, 09:39 PM
isnt it much easier to change objeckts than people?
Nope,,, Lock em' up, let em' rot.

pdf27
09-11-2008, 04:14 AM
Well, though others may disagree, its not Rubbish to us,and since it is our land, and the States hold the power over the Fed, the States decide when and if ever to organize a militia.
<shrugs> I have no objection to gun ownership (they are rather fun after all). I just think the idea that any number of gun-owning citizens have a prayer of standing up to any armed forces or even a moderately well armed/organised police force is risible. Loads of terrorist groups have tried it (from Northern Ireland to Southern Thailand by way of Iraq and Columbia) and all have given up as they suffer unacceptably high casualties for very little success. Now, if the US Constitution were to make car bombs, improvised heavy mortars and the like legal I might believe that they're serious about it (because these are what just about every terrorist group in such circumstances ends up using - they are what works for acceptable casualties to the group). Until such a time I remain convinced that the idea of a citizen militia being able to successfully oppose a government is an illusion.

Rising Sun*
09-11-2008, 04:49 AM
<shrugs> I have no objection to gun ownership (they are rather fun after all). I just think the idea that any number of gun-owning citizens have a prayer of standing up to any armed forces or even a moderately well armed/organised police force is risible. Loads of terrorist groups have tried it (from Northern Ireland to Southern Thailand by way of Iraq and Columbia) and all have given up as they suffer unacceptably high casualties for very little success. Now, if the US Constitution were to make car bombs, improvised heavy mortars and the like legal I might believe that they're serious about it (because these are what just about every terrorist group in such circumstances ends up using - they are what works for acceptable casualties to the group). Until such a time I remain convinced that the idea of a citizen militia being able to successfully oppose a government is an illusion.

Some of the most successful popular resistance movements have been unarmed, such as Ghandi et al in India and the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, precisely because they were truly popular movements unlike the often small minorities reflected by armed revolutionaries.

I can't see a citizen militia working in America or in any other developed country at the level of command, control and logistics required to even begin to put a force in the field capable of facing a brigade of regular federal forces with artillery, armoured and air support in anything approaching conventional warfare, and less so for any sustained effort, even if the militia has a solid core of people with military training.

Nonetheless, there's no shortage of people ready to rock and roll in citizens' militias as they feel the draconian noose of their federal government tightening around their oppressed necks, e.g. http://www.arizonamilitia.com/ http://www.indianamilitia.org/links.html

pdf27
09-11-2008, 05:34 AM
And doing so makes them feel good, gives them an opportunity to big time it, etc. It does not make them effective. They would last about 2 minutes against competent light infantry, let alone armoured vehicles.

Rising Sun*
09-11-2008, 06:19 AM
And doing so makes them feel good, gives them an opportunity to big time it, etc. It does not make them effective. They would last about 2 minutes against competent light infantry, let alone armoured vehicles.

I'd give them a lot longer than that if they had a solid core of people with military training, but they're doomed if only because when it comes to resupply the regular forces have the supply train to continue when the militia who have survived the artillery and air assaults have run out of whatever they can carry while their LOC are subject to air observation and attack and to artillery attack.

The other problem for a militia armed with an assortment of weapons is that, unlike regular forces, ammunition isn't standardised so it's no help to Joe who has run out of 30.06 cal that the recently deceased Fred has a pickup truck full of 5.56mm.

Going back to WWII, and even with resistance / partisan / guerrilla movements relatively well supplied in their homelands (e.g. France and Yugoslavia and to a lesser extent the Philippines) by the Allies, there was never the slightest prospect that any of those movements could hope to conquer the regular enemy occupation forces, which generally weren't first rate troops. The best they could do was guerrilla warfare and intelligence gathering and, later, scouting and advance operations for invading regular Allied troops.

Similarly, in Vietnam the VC never had the capacity to conquer the South Vietnamese ARVN / US allied forces. It was the regular North Vietnamese PAVN units which went south which posed the real military threats to the regular forces in SVN. Which reinforces the points that irregular forces cannot defeat regular forces to win a war, and that only regular forces can.

32Bravo
09-11-2008, 06:37 AM
Well, though others may disagree, its not Rubbish to us,and since it is our land...

Hear! Hear! ;)



As a people, Americans are bluntly unconcerned with what others think of us, and our way of life.


But as individuals they care more about how they are perceived as a people than any other people I've met...but I appreciate the 'V' (two fingers) to the above comments. :cool:

Panzerknacker
09-11-2008, 08:04 AM
Obviously some people feel unconfortable with freedom, specially britons, freedom is not for everybody, that is why I like the US aproach about guns.

I want the second amendment in my constitution too. :rolleyes:

32Bravo
09-11-2008, 08:19 AM
I want the second amendment in my constitution too. :rolleyes:

Why? Are you having problems with your movements?

Rising Sun*
09-11-2008, 08:43 AM
Why? Are you having problems with your movements?

Believe me, lords, my tender years can tell
Civil dissension is a viperous worm
That gnaws the bowels of the commonwealth

;) :o

32Bravo
09-11-2008, 08:52 AM
I will begin at thy heel and tell what thou art by inches. thou thing of no bowels. thou! :)

Rising Sun*
09-11-2008, 09:11 AM
Obviously some people feel unconfortable with freedom, specially britons, freedom is not for everybody, that is why I like the US aproach about guns.

Oddly enough, despite some significant social and other tensions and events during the period, the Britons managed (apart from a rather petulant revolution in one of its minor colonies around 1776 ;) :D ) to remain rather peaceful at home while Europe was vigorously destroying itself from Napoleon to Franco to Hitler; while America fought a shocking civil war; and while much of the rest of the world was biting at its own flesh.

And, even more oddly, without a written constitution Britain managed to evolve to give its citizens freedoms which are unknown to the citizens of various nations which require papers for every citizen and which have police more like armed soldiers or even armed bandits who can exercise powers even a drunken corrupt British copper could not begin to dream of.

There was a very good reason that Marx went to Britain, as have countless other emigres since including various Islamic lunatics currently residing there, instead of to America or France which both founded their liberties upon similar principles.

Because, liberal gun laws or not, Britain has quietly practised and guaranteed the liberties which its citizens and residents take for granted but which are not enjoyed by the citizens and residents of other countries with rather noisier proclamations of liberty.

tankgeezer
09-11-2008, 09:14 AM
Obviously some people feel unconfortable with freedom, specially britons, freedom is not for everybody, that is why I like the US aproach about guns.

I want the second amendment in my constitution too. :rolleyes:
Plenty of room here in the Grand Republic my friend, C'mon up! Once you get your green card, I'll take you tank shopping. and for my other good pals, I will suggest googling up the Knob Creek machinegun shoot in Kentucky. its one of many organized shoots held a couple times each year,, You-Tube has clips of it,, and you can see how the people are armed.
We as americans do not ever really expect to have to fight the Federal Gov't, but it is one of the reasons we have the second amendment. Just in case......:mrgreen:
We, (private citizens) also during the 2nd war sent crate loads of donated privately owned firearms to our beloved U.K. cousins, dont recall the program's name, (or programme) but it was to help the local folks defend their shores should Adolph decide to send a land invasion. Your own form of civilian Militia,, I am happy beyond saying that no invasion came, you guys must have scared em' pretty good.(or MI-6 sent them the recipe for black pudding&Haggis) now I'm hungry,,,,

Rising Sun*
09-11-2008, 09:15 AM
I will begin at thy heel and tell what thou art by inches. thou thing of no bowels. thou! :)

I would have peace and quietness, but the fool will
not: he there: that he: look you there. ;)

Rising Sun*
09-11-2008, 09:21 AM
We also during the 2nd war sent crate loads of donated firearms to our beloved U.K. cousins, dont recall the program's name, (or programme) but it was to help the local folks defend their shores should Adolph decide to send a land invasion.

So did we, from a smaller base which denuded our army.

So we were short a full infantry division of .303s when Japan attacked, with bugger all coming back from Britain except Churchill's empty promises to send us Spitfires which finally arrived after they weren't of much use, after you Yanks had pretty much saved us in the Coral Sea and at Guadalcanal, with some pretty impressive efforts on our own part elsewhere.

32Bravo
09-11-2008, 09:24 AM
I would have peace and quietness, but the fool will
not: he there: that he: look you there. ;)

Ingrateful, savage and inhuman creature!..

Wouldst thou have practised on me for thy use...

Rising Sun*
09-11-2008, 09:34 AM
Ingrateful, savage and inhuman creature!..

Wouldst thou have practised on me for thy use...


If that same demon that hath gull'd thee thus
Should with his lion gait walk the whole world,
He might return to vasty Tartar back,
And tell the legions 'I can never win
A soul so easy as that Englishman's.' ;) :D

32Bravo
09-11-2008, 09:41 AM
If that same demon that hath gull'd thee thus
Should with his lion gait walk the whole world,
He might return to vasty Tartar back,
And tell the legions 'I can never win
A soul so easy as that Englishman's.' ;) :D


That Island of England breeds very valiant creatures ;)

Rising Sun*
09-11-2008, 09:51 AM
That Island of England breeds very valiant creatures ;)

And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

32Bravo
09-11-2008, 10:07 AM
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers

mike M.
09-11-2008, 10:16 AM
An armed society is a polite society.

32Bravo
09-11-2008, 10:31 AM
In peacetime, nothing looks better in a man than restraint and humility. But when the battle trumpet blows in our ears, then it's time to act like the tiger.

pdf27
09-11-2008, 10:59 AM
We, (private citizens) also during the 2nd war sent crate loads of donated privately owned firearms to our beloved U.K. cousins, dont recall the program's name, (or programme) but it was to help the local folks defend their shores should Adolph decide to send a land invasion. Your own form of civilian Militia,, I am happy beyond saying that no invasion came, you guys must have scared em' pretty good
The weapons went to the Home Guard (changed from "Local Defence Volunteers" after it was pointed out the initials also stood for "Look, Duck and Vanish"). The difference between the Home Guard and the US "militia" of course is that the Home Guard was largely composed of the same men who had destroyed the German Army in Flanders 20 years before, and who were training regularly during WW2.
Despite it's "Dad's Army" image, the Home Guard was actually a pretty serious military organisation...

pdf27
09-11-2008, 11:03 AM
An armed society is a polite society.
So long as everyone is sane and (importantly) sober, that's largely true. Sadly, it is actually quite rare for both conditions to be fulfilled in human society.

Oh, and a counterpoint to the argument about citizens being as well armed as the state being an important guarantor of liberty - the UK has largely achieved this back to front by disarming the state. The (small) armed forces are explicitly loyal to the Crown rather than the Government, and the police are pretty much unarmed. While it is largely true that firearms make people equal to each other, since Governments can rarely mobilise large numbers of bodies in their defence a disarmed government is actually more vulnerable to an unarmed populace than it is where both parties are armed. Now, anyone feel like lynching Gordon Brown? :twisted:

mike M.
09-11-2008, 02:04 PM
I just think the idea that any number of gun-owning citizens have a prayer of standing up to any armed forces or even a moderately well armed/organised police force is risible. Loads of terrorist groups have tried it (from Northern Ireland to Southern Thailand by way of Iraq and Columbia) and all have given up as they suffer unacceptably high casualties for very little success.


Thats like saying Small arms can't win wars, as all the Viet Cong bombing, air superiority, and naval missions prove. The VC did pretty good against us

pdf27
09-11-2008, 02:46 PM
Thats like saying Small arms can't win wars, as all the Viet Cong bombing, air superiority, and naval missions prove. The VC did pretty good against us
Yet despite massive state aid and a highly incompetent enemy (the US and ARVN) the Viet Cong lost and were almost exterminated by the end of the war. In the event it was an attacking force of PAVN T-54s and 100,000 infantry that took Saigon, not the Viet Cong.

mike M.
09-11-2008, 04:13 PM
Yet despite massive state aid and a highly incompetent enemy (the US and ARVN)


You being British you better than anyone should understand it was the incompetent politicians and not the troops.

pdf27
09-11-2008, 04:22 PM
You being British you better than anyone should understand it was the incompetent politicians and not the troops.
So what? Whoever was at fault - politicians or troops - the net result was that the war fought against the VC/PAVN was fought incompetently.

tankgeezer
09-11-2008, 07:11 PM
Quote: "So long as everyone is sane and (importantly) sober, that's largely true. Sadly, it is actually quite rare for both conditions to be fulfilled in human society."
Well, remember, the U.S. is peopled by Scots, Irish, and Germans.So, it may be difficult to find both qualities present in a single moment.. :)

pdf27
09-12-2008, 09:31 AM
Well, remember, the U.S. is peopled by Scots, Irish, and Germans.So, it may be difficult to find both qualities present in a single moment.. :)
Maybe so, but the weather is a great deal better so they don't drink nearly as much. What would be normal drinking in say the UK would be regarded as being a borderline alcoholic in the States.

tankgeezer
09-12-2008, 10:25 AM
Maybe so, but the weather is a great deal better so they don't drink nearly as much. What would be normal drinking in say the UK would be regarded as being a borderline alcoholic in the States.
In this day, and age it surely would be, I have been walking the streets of Edinburgh Saturday night at closing time, reminds me of the movie doomsday a bit. But I live in Milwaukee, where drinking is a destination, we have a department of Beer and power. Although we have the great huge freshwater Lake Michigan right here, most locals still prefer their water to be surrounded by beer. The better weather just makes them thirstier. (In all fairness, the beer here is only 3.2 to 4.1 % alcohol, with just a few being perhaps 6, or 8 % from local microbrewers) so even our local brigands are somewhat tea-totalers by U.K. standards.
All funning aside, the U.S. consumption day to day, has dropped, and the police are using new laws to ensure no drunks on the roads, the legal limit here, and many other states is .08, (about one sip, and a sniff of a Guinness)to qualify for driving under the influence, and for those who really cant hold their liquor, there is a lesser offense, driving while impaired, which will superceed the .08 limit if one appears to be unable to drive properly, but does not blow an .08 or greater. I dont drink, gave it up years ago, but beer is a part of our local culture, and history. Milwaukee was at one time the brewing capitol of America.In the early days (for America anyway) the 1840's the residents were pretty much German, or Polish, so nary a drop ever hit the ground.

Rising Sun*
09-12-2008, 10:43 AM
As a matter of interest, who among those for or against guns has ever shot; shot at; or confronted another person while armed with a loaded firearm and been willing to shoot to kill?

I have.

Twice.

I could, and certainly in one case should, have handled things differently. But I was young and full of the unthinking and self-righteous piss and vinegar which is common among people who think that using guns to protect their loved ones and homes is a good idea.

If either case had turned out differently I would have been in gaol, and two people could have been dead who didn't need to be.

Those two instances are among the strong reasons why I think that it's not a bad idea to keep firearms away from citizens who might be a bit inclined to use a gun to overcome their self-perceived weakness in situations where a life could be taken unnecessarily.

EDIT: Actually, it should be three times. I forgot one.

Rising Sun*
09-12-2008, 10:48 AM
...we have a department of Beer and power...

O, how we poor citizens of lesser nations yearn to live in a country of the utmost power which, rightly, puts beer before power. ;)

America, despite its various faults, always manages in the end to hold up the highest standards of civilisation and culture. :D

Rising Sun*
09-12-2008, 10:50 AM
Quote: "So long as everyone is sane and (importantly) sober, that's largely true. Sadly, it is actually quite rare for both conditions to be fulfilled in human society."
Well, remember, the U.S. is peopled by Scots, Irish, and Germans.So, it may be difficult to find both qualities present in a single moment.. :)

Well, one out of two ain't bad. ;) :D

Nickdfresh
09-12-2008, 11:14 AM
Obviously some people feel unconfortable with freedom, specially britons, freedom is not for everybody, that is why I like the US aproach about guns.

I want the second amendment in my constitution too. :rolleyes:

No offense, but doesn't the UK have a much longer, more stable tradition of democracy than Argentina?

Nickdfresh
09-12-2008, 11:20 AM
Thats like saying Small arms can't win wars, as all the Viet Cong bombing, air superiority, and naval missions prove. The VC did pretty good against us

The Main Force Regulars were armed with a lot more than a few scattered guns. And those that didn't fillet themselves during Tet were wiped out by the "Operation Phoenix" program...

Nickdfresh
09-12-2008, 11:27 AM
So what? Whoever was at fault - politicians or troops - the net result was that the war fought against the VC/PAVN was fought incompetently.


Um, no, you're wrong. It just took a while, and there is a good deal of confusion of what the VC/National Liberation Front were. But they were separated into "Main Force Regulars" which were highly competent, experienced men (and women) that were probably trained to an even better standard than the average NVA soldier, while the rest were "militia" types that filled out at night...

The NLF were destroyed not through purely military means, as you grunts are largely useless for such tasks, ;), but through a targeted program called Operation Phoenix, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program) which grew from what was to be an interrogation and data collection program into an outright assassination pogrom. But at least it was a targeted one.

BTW, rumor has it that something similar, and more modern and slightly less bloody version, has been used in Iraq by US special operations forces...

Rising Sun*
09-12-2008, 11:36 AM
No offense, but doesn't the UK have a much longer, more stable tradition of democracy than Argentina?


Oh dear!

Facts intrude into delusions of freedom by gun. :shock:

Rising Sun*
09-12-2008, 11:51 AM
Um, no, you're wrong. It just took a while, and there is a good deal of confusion of what the VC/National Liberation Front were. But they were separated into "Main Force Regulars" which were highly competent, experienced men (and women) that were probably trained to an even better standard than the average NVA soldier, while the rest were "militia" types that filled out at night...

An aspect which is largely ignored by NVN and Western writers nowadays is that the VC cadres imposed a reign of terror on the hamlets and forced people into VC service in various capacities, from carriers to riflemen. The VC was not universally populated by committed volunteers.

The VC oppression should have been a total failure, but the antipathy towards the SVN and US generated by militarily logical (by US doctrine) but ultimately unthinking search and destroy exercises etc made the VC the lesser of two evils, and reinforced the VC in ways at the local level which the US couldn't begin to hope for as an occupying force despite its well-intentioned 'Hearts and Minds' campaign.

The growth of the VC during the war was perhaps more a condemnation of American failure to understand the war it was fighting and the nation in which it was fighting than it was of any outpouring of patriotism by peasants who largely probably had little conception of a national identity, apart from that forced upon them by the SVN / American / Allies assaults upon their homes, crops, families, and livelihoods.

Nickdfresh
09-12-2008, 12:00 PM
An aspect which is largely ignored by NVN and Western writers nowadays is that the VC cadres imposed a reign of terror on the hamlets and forced people into VC service in various capacities, from carriers to riflemen. The VC was not universally populated by committed volunteers.

The VC oppression should have been a total failure, but the antipathy towards the SVN and US generated by militarily logical (by US doctrine) but ultimately unthinking search and destroy exercises etc made the VC the lesser of two evils, and reinforced the VC in ways at the local level which the US couldn't begin to hope for as an occupying force despite its well-intentioned 'Hearts and Minds' campaign.

The growth of the VC during the war was perhaps more a condemnation of American failure to understand the war it was fighting and the nation in which it was fighting than it was of any outpouring of patriotism by peasants who largely probably had little conception of a national identity, apart from that forced upon them by the SVN / American / Allies assaults upon their homes, crops, families, and livelihoods.

The NLF/VC gained power because the Saigon gov't was institutional corrupt and unable to mount a serious counterattack organizationally. The VC's success was as much a "secret war" or intelligence war as it was a guerrilla or sometimes conventional battle...

The Phoenix program actually did to the secret NLF shadow gov't what it had been doing to the Saigon one, assassinating or capturing (the original intent was the latter actually, but the former became far more prevalent) key, effective NLF leaders.

It worked, very well!

pdf27
09-12-2008, 12:11 PM
Um, no, you're wrong. It just took a while, and there is a good deal of confusion of what the VC/National Liberation Front were. But they were separated into "Main Force Regulars" which were highly competent, experienced men (and women) that were probably trained to an even better standard than the average NVA soldier, while the rest were "militia" types that filled out at night...

The NLF were destroyed not through purely military means, as you grunts are largely useless for such tasks, ;), but through a targeted program called Operation Phoenix, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program) which grew from what was to be an interrogation and data collection program into an outright assassination pogrom. But at least it was a targeted one.
I'm well aware that the US (eventually) virtually destroyed the opposition on the field of battle. The point being that they did so at a cost they couldn't afford, and doing so lost them the war. I regard that as incompetence.

Rising Sun*
09-12-2008, 12:20 PM
I'm well aware that the US (eventually) virtually destroyed the opposition on the field of battle. The point being that they did so at a cost they couldn't afford, and doing so lost them the war. I regard that as incompetence.

In fairness to the Yanks, they were guests in SVN unlike the Brits in Malaya who were the colonial power able to exercise all the powers which might have allowed the Yanks in Vietnam to win if they weren't subject to the control of SVN corrupt zombies.

Nickdfresh
09-12-2008, 12:24 PM
I'm well aware that the US (eventually) virtually destroyed the opposition on the field of battle. The point being that they did so at a cost they couldn't afford, and doing so lost them the war. I regard that as incompetence.


But it wasn't the "field of battle," it was the field of a secret/dirty war...The Vietnam War was fundamentally two wars, both largely involving a Vietnamese civil war...A conventional battle against the NVA, and a counterinsurgency war against the NLF...I think you're drastically oversimplifying things...

And we can argue all day why the US "lost" the War in which everyone "lost and won" (from the title of a great book on the subject). But I would challenge anyone to "win" in those circumstances where politcal considerations overwhelm the purely military ones. And most militaries have their institutional incompetencies, including the one you serve in...

herman2
09-12-2008, 12:25 PM
PDF know what he's talking about. I agree with PDF. Everybody else is wrong. Don't take no lip from these guys PDF. Your the man!

Nickdfresh
09-12-2008, 12:28 PM
PDF know what he's talking about. I agree with PDF. Everybody else is wrong. Don't take no lip from these guys PDF. Your the man!

Shut up!

mike M.
09-12-2008, 12:35 PM
As a matter of interest, who among those for or against guns has ever shot; shot at; or confronted another person while armed with a loaded firearm and been willing to shoot to kill?

I have. Twice. EDIT: Actually, it should be three times. I forgot one.



Wow!!! I didn't expect the above, maybe this means you hang out in the wrong places or with the wrong people, or MAYBE you just bring out the worst in people. :)
Other than 2 years in Europe while in the military, I've lived my whole life in the vicinity of Los Angeles and I've been lucky enough to never have been forced to pull a firearm on anyone.
Maybe this does mean an armed society is a politer society. I would really love to hear the details from your above confrontations.

mike M.
09-12-2008, 12:39 PM
PDF know what he's talking about. I agree with PDF. Everybody else is wrong. Don't take no lip from these guys PDF. Your the man!


LOL..Your brown nosing seems to never stop, you must be trying for officer.

Nickdfresh
09-12-2008, 12:41 PM
LOL..Your brown nosing seems to never stop, you must be trying for officer.

Or he's trying to be ironically funny.

Rising Sun*
09-12-2008, 12:52 PM
LOL..Your brown nosing seems to never stop, you must be trying for officer.

Down here, we'd say he was sucking up to an occifer, which contemplates an aperture for advancement. ;)

pdf27
09-12-2008, 12:57 PM
But I would challenge anyone to "win" in those circumstances where politcal considerations overwhelm the purely military ones.
Thing is, I take war to be strictly a political act, following Clausewitz, with the armed forces being strictly anciliary to the politics. For the politicians to give the military an impossible mission - and indeed for the military to accept that mission without severe and clear warnings to the politicians - I regard as incompetence.


And most militaries have their institutional incompetencies, including the one you serve in...
Indeed. I'd better not start naming the, as I'd be here all night!

herman2
09-12-2008, 01:12 PM
Shut up!

Your just jealous that I got promoted today to Staff Sergeant. One day I will be of equal rank as you; then we can be equal partners in the discussion of war stuff. Anyways, sorry for ragging on this thread (which I created by the way, so you see, I can be useful to the general public)...I was just so excited about my promotion that I had to share it with my friends. Thank You WW2 in Color-Your The best! See you guys on Monday:)

Rising Sun*
09-12-2008, 01:14 PM
Wow!!! I didn't expect the above, maybe this means you hang out in the wrong places or with the wrong people, or MAYBE you just bring out the worst in people. :)
Other than 2 years in Europe while in the military, I've lived my whole life in the vicinity of Los Angeles and I've been lucky enough to never have been forced to pull a firearm on anyone.
Maybe this does mean an armed society is a politer society. I would really love to hear the details from your above confrontations.

Mate, I bring out the worst in the worst people, and they're just my children! ;) :D

Short version of the main event, which I think I've posted previously in more detail somewhere else, is confronting a burglar / prowler at night with my trusty Savage .410 / .22 magnum and thumb cocking the hammer on .410 as I leapt into the only spot where I could shine a torch on the prowler I thought was hiding in the only spot he could be hiding, which he was. I could have killed the poor bastard, and got myself a dozen years with my arse being soaped up in gaol, with a slip on the hammer.

The other ones are even less heroic, but in each case offered the opportunity to direct a slug into the head of someone who richly deserved it, if you think that killing people for seriously pissing you off amounts to deserving to be killed by a jerk with a gun.

As for living in Los Angeles, I'm surprised you haven't needed to pull your weapon as I thought that the Bloods and Crips were always bustin a cap in the face of yo honkies. ;)

Nickdfresh
09-12-2008, 01:19 PM
Thing is, I take war to be strictly a political act, following Clausewitz, with the armed forces being strictly anciliary to the politics. For the politicians to give the military an impossible mission - and indeed for the military to accept that mission without severe and clear warnings to the politicians - I regard as incompetence.

They were warned actually, as "the Pentagon Papers" show, embarrassingly. Politicians were warned early and often. But the war was like a tarpit of "mission creep" ensnaring the US...

Though, that is not to say it was solely the civilian politicians fault. In any case, to claim that the War was the United States' to win or lose would he the epitome of imperial arrogance. It was to be won or lost by the Vietnamese, and in essence it was won AND lost by both sides! The best interpretation of the confused US mission was only to hold and attrit the NLF/North until the South could be built up enough to withstand them. The VC were almost totally defeated and more or less were a nonfactor by the end. Their was no such mandate regarding the Hanoi gov't in the North...


Indeed. I'd better not start naming the, as I'd be here all night!

Yeah, and you'd find yourself in Afghanistan, or guarding the Falklands!

Nickdfresh
09-12-2008, 01:20 PM
Your just jealous that I got promoted today to Staff Sergeant. One day I will be of equal rank as you; then we can be equal partners in the discussion of war stuff. Anyways, sorry for ragging on this thread (which I created by the way, so you see, I can be useful to the general public)...I was just so excited about my promotion that I had to share it with my friends. Thank You WW2 in Color-Your The best! See you guys on Monday:)


Don't sell yourself short. You're already MUCH ranker than I am. And I'm pretty rank!

tankgeezer
09-12-2008, 01:22 PM
Well, we are as flawed as any clump of humanity might be, but continue to rumble along, a nation never finished, always building, and changing, hopefully never regressing. We do like our beer, although its pretty weak by world standards. (an unfortunate side effect of WW-II ), the gov't didnt want the troops too well lubed, and the women running the factories didnt like the usual heavies that were traditional to our mostly German based brewing companies. Once the war ended, everyone was pretty much used to the lighter rice, and corn adulterated brews, and its been that way since. though the Micro brewers have resurrected the old heavies, as well as introduced some new and inventive brews. These days Miller Produces around 42 million BBls of beer, and Busch about 68 million BBLs per year.

Rising Sun*
09-12-2008, 01:33 PM
These days Miller Produces around 42 million BBls of beer, and Busch about 68 million BBLs per year.

This may be true, but none of that vast production meets our standards of drinkable.

Okay, if there's nothing else left after a long night, we'd drink your beer, but we wouldn't enjoy it, ;) :D

mike M.
09-12-2008, 02:03 PM
As for living in Los Angeles, I'm surprised you haven't needed to pull your weapon as I thought that the Bloods and Crips were always bustin a cap in the face of yo honkies. ;)


Trust me, if I was to go wandering around through South Central L.A at night, trouble would find me, its just that I know better and don't go there.
When I was a rookie Fire Fighter years ago driving to my station at 5 in the morning in that part of the hood, I wouldn't be caught dead without my 45 on the seat next to me and that advise was given to me by the LAPD.
There are times when the gang banging scum bring crime to the area where I live but I truly believe them not knowing who is and isn't armed keeps them to their own area for the most part.
Here in the United States if someone is breaking into your house and " YOUR IN FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE" you will have a justified shooting. That's why God invented screw drivers, im sure the dead bad guy will end up with one in his hand....:) On the other hand if you shoot someone in the back while they are running away, you will have problems.

edited to add. P.S. South Central was termed politically un correct by our city leaders..it is now known as South Los Angeles

Nickdfresh
09-12-2008, 02:14 PM
This may be true, but none of that vast production meets our standards of drinkable.

Okay, if there's nothing else left after a long night, we'd drink your beer, but we wouldn't enjoy it, ;) :D

You wouldn't be able to taste it at that point!

pdf27
09-12-2008, 02:28 PM
The best interpretation of the confused US mission was only to hold and attrit the NLF/North until the South could be built up enough to withstand them.
And that would be an entirely reasonable mission. But for the little minor detail that no serious thought was given to precisely HOW the south would be turned into a functional state capable of defending itself. Oops.


Yeah, and you'd find yourself in Afghanistan, or guarding the Falklands!
Actually, I believe it is an offence to start slagging the army off in the press under Queens Regs or something similar.
Oh, and rather than Afghanistan or the Falklands I'm probably going to find myself in Medicine Hat in November. The climate has to be worse, but I'm hoping the locals will be at least marginally friendlier.

tankgeezer
09-12-2008, 03:19 PM
This may be true, but none of that vast production meets our standards of drinkable.

Okay, if there's nothing else left after a long night, we'd drink your beer, but we wouldn't enjoy it, ;) :D
I, and many other Americans do certainly agree with you I liken American light beers to "spaghetti water" as it tastes about the same as light beer. (just add a sprinkle of moonshine to give it some kick. I think though, that after a long night of robust Ales, and stouts, you would not be able to taste a miller light. (a good thing too, wouldnt want to leave a bad taste in your mouth.) :)

tankgeezer
09-12-2008, 03:24 PM
Now, to take this thread one more step into the mists of weirdness, I give you a man who took the phrase a bit too literally, Mr. Valantino

pdf27
09-12-2008, 04:46 PM
Someone with the male version of Anorexia, methinks.

Nickdfresh
09-12-2008, 04:57 PM
And that would be an entirely reasonable mission. But for the little minor detail that no serious thought was given to precisely HOW the south would be turned into a functional state capable of defending itself. Oops.

Then that was on the South Vietnamese themselves...



Actually, I believe it is an offence to start slagging the army off in the press under Queens Regs or something similar.
Oh, and rather than Afghanistan or the Falklands I'm probably going to find myself in Medicine Hat in November. The climate has to be worse, but I'm hoping the locals will be at least marginally friendlier.


Try the Molsons! You won't get that in Afghanistan!

http://www.breweriana.com/bottles/bottlemolsonsale.jpg

pdf27
09-12-2008, 06:29 PM
Then that was on the South Vietnamese themselves...
Even though their political leadership was clearly incapable of even working towards the type of society needed for this to work? Like I said, incompetence.

Nickdfresh
09-12-2008, 06:59 PM
Even though their political leadership was clearly incapable of even working towards the type of society needed for this to work? Like I said, incompetence.


There was no real political leadership, not as we would know it and one that was not devolved from any policies of the US. They were already there from the French colonial occupation...

Like I said, drastic oversimplification...

B5N2KATE
09-13-2008, 12:08 AM
Spike Milligan once said that he had a "Right to bare arms, bare legs, bare anything really..."

Rising Sun*
09-13-2008, 08:29 AM
Trust me, if I was to go wandering around through South Central L.A at night, trouble would find me, its just that I know better and don't go there.
When I was a rookie Fire Fighter years ago driving to my station at 5 in the morning in that part of the hood, I wouldn't be caught dead without my 45 on the seat next to me and that advise was given to me by the LAPD.

Perhaps that is part of the reason that down here we're totally uncomprehending of the attitude of many Americans to guns and gun control.

We don't have anything like the situation you describe, nor would our police countenance citizens arming themselves with guns for self defence in cars or anywhere else. It's an offence here to carry an offensive weapon, which is anything - cricket (or baseball) bat, screwdriver, coin roll, real or toy gun, or whatever - you're carrying with the intention of using as a weapon, even for self-defence.

Sure, we have areas in most capital and many regional cities and towns where common sense says you ought to be cautious and a few small areas where you wouldn't go into after dark and maybe not even during daylight if you had a choice, and areas where police avoid going in if they can manage it, but they're not areas where gunfire is common or likely (more's the pity in some cases as a bit of judicious extermination would sort some of those areas out very nicely ;) )


There are times when the gang banging scum bring crime to the area where I live but I truly believe them not knowing who is and isn't armed keeps them to their own area for the most part.

Or are they pretty territorial?

A woman friend of mine (Australian) was in ?San Francisco in the seventies. She got lost walking somewhere and realised she was getting deeper and deeper into black areas where she was generating rather more interest than she wanted. She knew she was in trouble and became visibly distressed. A rather large black man, who looked like the black pimp in one of the Dirty Harry movies, approached her. He realised what had happened and escorted her to a point where she could reach her destination if she followed the directions he gave her. She asked him to accompany her. He said something to the effect "If I cross that street and go down there, I mightn't be coming back.". Apparently it was a gang boundary.


Here in the United States if someone is breaking into your house and " YOUR IN FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE" you will have a justified shooting. That's why God invented screw drivers, im sure the dead bad guy will end up with one in his hand....:) On the other hand if you shoot someone in the back while they are running away, you will have problems.

Same here.

We're entitled to shoot if it's reasonably necessary to defend ourselves when we've exhausted all other possibilities. So, for example, we can't shoot someone who is trying to open a window but if he comes through it and is armed, even if with only a screwdriver, and backs us into a corner then we can. The grey area is between those two points.


edited to add. P.S. South Central was termed politically un correct by our city leaders..it is now known as South Los Angeles

Presumably this renaming has caused the property values to skyrocket. :D

Rising Sun*
09-13-2008, 08:35 AM
Spike Milligan once said that he had a "Right to bare arms, bare legs, bare anything really..."

His gravestone also has a headstone which says what he wanted, but in Gaelic because of various family and religious problems about putting it in English, "I told you I was sick."

tankgeezer
09-13-2008, 11:59 AM
Hi guys, here is one more item to add to the American home arsenal. A couple of companies here have begun marketing a rifle upper action to fit the lower receiver of any AR-15 or M-16. Just slide the 2 pins closed, and you have a completely legal, and very potent single shot rifle in .50 BMG. all for the low, low cost of around $1,600. far cheaper than those other very expensive .50's on the market these days,,,
Local criminals are wearing body armor you say??? no problem if you have this very effective,simple, and easy to use tool, socially misaligned people got you down? tsk tsk,, once they feel the breeze of a hot .50 passing close by, they will straighten up, and fly right.. Its all here, at the Saturday night gun mart, never a hold up at the check out, at the Saturday night gun mart, where you're the target. :)

pdf27
09-13-2008, 12:56 PM
Errr.... Are you sure that isn't .50 Beowulf rather than .50 BMG? There do exist .50 BMG conversions (see below), but the don't have much in common with the AR-15.
http://www.ferret50.com/graphics/photos/404005.jpg
On the other hand, .50 Beowulf does look rather similar to a stock AR-15.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/1.jpg

flamethrowerguy
09-13-2008, 02:25 PM
Hi guys, here is one more item to add to the American home arsenal. A couple of companies here have begun marketing a rifle upper action to fit the lower receiver of any AR-15 or M-16. Just slide the 2 pins closed, and you have a completely legal, and very potent single shot rifle in .50 BMG. all for the low, low cost of around $1,600. far cheaper than those other very expensive .50's on the market these days,,,
Local criminals are wearing body armor you say??? no problem if you have this very effective,simple, and easy to use tool, socially misaligned people got you down? tsk tsk,, once they feel the breeze of a hot .50 passing close by, they will straighten up, and fly right.. Its all here, at the Saturday night gun mart, never a hold up at the check out, at the Saturday night gun mart, where you're the target.

Does Michael Moore know about this???;)

tankgeezer
09-13-2008, 02:53 PM
Its in .50 BMG, and not a bad looking device either. One could build one's own lower receiver at home, its just some assembly, clip the barreled upper to it, and you're ready to Rumble. The outfit is www.ultralite50.com
It has been rumored that the aggressive bastion of tyranny, Canada, has been coveting the resources of our Bacon mines, so these rifles will be issued to all citizens. (The forgoing is pure humor, The U.S. is in truth not at Bacon defcon 2):shock:

tankgeezer
09-13-2008, 02:56 PM
Michael who?????(as in who cares) ha! The prancing cockscomb is doubtless paring of his cheese. :)

32Bravo
09-14-2008, 04:24 AM
Hi guys, here is one more item to add to the American home arsenal. A couple of companies here have begun marketing a rifle upper action to fit the lower receiver of any AR-15 or M-16. Just slide the 2 pins closed, and you have a completely legal, and very potent single shot rifle in .50 BMG. all for the low, low cost of around $1,600. far cheaper than those other very expensive .50's on the market these days,,,
Local criminals are wearing body armor you say??? no problem if you have this very effective,simple, and easy to use tool, socially misaligned people got you down? tsk tsk,, once they feel the breeze of a hot .50 passing close by, they will straighten up, and fly right.. Its all here, at the Saturday night gun mart, never a hold up at the check out, at the Saturday night gun mart, where you're the target. :)

Would this be available to the socially mis-aligned? :)

32Bravo
09-14-2008, 04:52 AM
Another point of view from the U.S.


PrairiePundit

Commentary on politics and the continuation of policy by other means.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Why the anti gun lobby lost


-- Gun control didn't work. In the 1990s, despite its draconian ban, Washington became the murder capital of the United States. Chicago's homicide rate, which had been declining in the years before it banned handguns, climbed over the following decade. Gun control didn't work.

During the time the federal assault weapons law was in effect, the number of gun murders declined -- but so did murders involving knives and other weapons. When the law was allowed to expire in 2004, something interesting happened to the national murder rate: nothing.

-- Laws allowing concealed weapons proliferated -- with no ill effects. In 1987, Florida gained national attention -- and notoriety -- by passing a law allowing citizens to get permits to carry concealed handguns. Opponents predicted a wave of carnage by pistol-packing hotheads, but it didn't happen. In fact, murders and other violent crimes subsided. Permit holders proved to be sober and restrained.

People elsewhere took heed, and today, according to the NRA, 40 states have "right-to-carry" laws. As those laws have spread, the homicide rate has fallen sharply from the peak reached in 1991.

-- The Second Amendment got a second look. In 1983, a San Francisco lawyer named Don Kates published an article in the University of Michigan Law Review arguing that, contrary to prevailing wisdom in the judiciary and law schools, the Constitution upholds an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Numerous legal scholars, spurred to examine the record, reached the same surprising conclusion. Before long, even some liberal law professors were coming around.

...

Chapman believes, and I agree, that the second look by the legal scholars was crucial to changing the opinion and it worked its way into Scalia's opinion.

The big city mayors and police chiefs still are frightened by the exercise of this right, but the results of the concealed carry laws should encourage officials to reconsider. When they rewrite their existing prohibitions they should put in a requirement for a gun safety course and license the purchasers, if they are concerned about how the weapon will be used. Criminals will still have to obtain their weapons through illegal means, but at least potential victims are no longer disarmed.
Posted by Merv at 11:02 AM
Labels: 2nd Amendment
1 comments:

Mark said...

potential victims are no longer diarmed my f*cking ***, if there are no guns there are no victims, if there are more guns there are more potential victims end of story!
8:19 AM

32Bravo
09-14-2008, 04:55 AM
Jodie Foster Joins Anti Gun Lobby

09-09-2007 11:28

Jodie Foster: 'Firearms Should Be Banned'

Actress Jodie Foster has hit out at America's abundance of firearms, insisting all guns should be banned.

Foster, who plays an urban vigilante in new movie The Brave One, believes her anti-gun stance is out of step with the beliefs of most of her countrymen.

She says, "I don't believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being. Americans are by nature filled with rage-slash-fear. And guns are a huge part of our culture.

"I know I'm crazy because I'm only supposed to say that in Europe. But violence corrupts absolutely."

32Bravo
09-14-2008, 04:57 AM
Dave Workman: The anti-gun lobby misleads us with false data on officer deaths

By DAVE WORKMAN

Tuesday, Sep. 25, 2007

ONCE AGAIN the anti-gun lobby is trying to convince Congress and the American public that so-called "assault weapons" should be banned because so many police officers are dying in the line of duty.

And predictably, the effort is founded on falsehood and hysteria, designed to fool and alarm people into supporting a political agenda that ultimately would legislate gun ownership out of existence.

Recently, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (which should more accurately call itself the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership) issued a statement containing figures on the annual number of law enforcement deaths in America. Buried in their news release was this remarkably transparent canard: "More officers are killed with firearms than through any other single cause."

We know that's false because the same news release provided readers with the evidence. Said the release: "According to the National Law Enforcement Memorial, there have been 132 officer fatalities in the U.S. so far this year, with 54 killed by a firearm. In all of last year, 145 officers died in the line of duty, 52 due to firearms. In 2005, 50 officers were killed with firearms."

First, the 2005 figure is wrong. There were 59 officers killed by gunfire that year, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF), out of a total of 162 officer fatalities. Second, the Brady Campaign can claim that guns are the top killer only by ignoring officers killed in motor vehicle incidents.

According to the NLEOMF, the same source the Brady Campaign cited, in the past 10 years, 582 of the 1,649 police officers who died on the job were shot to death. By contrast, 707 were killed in motor vehicle accidents. So the single largest cause of officer fatalities is traffic accidents, not gun deaths. The Brady Campaign is misleading the American public.

Police work is risky. But the biggest risk comes from motorized transportation, not firearms. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, working as a police officer is not as risky as working as a logger, commercial fisherman, roofer, construction worker, pilot or truck driver.

Anti-gunners like the Brady folks also know that relatively few cops are killed with so-called "assault weapons." But they want those guns banned, perhaps to establish a precedent that would make banning another type of firearm a little easier in the future.

The Brady Campaign launched this new attack on firearms by exploiting a recent shooting in Florida in which Miami-Dade Sgt. Jose Somohano was killed and three other officers were wounded by gunman Shawn LaBeet, himself killed later by police.

In editorializing against firearms after that shooting, the Miami Herald couldn't even get its facts right when it tried to link the Miami shooting to the Virginia Tech shootings, gasping, "Seung-Hui Cho used a high-capacity assault weapon to kill 32 people at Virginia Tech last April."

That is not true. Cho used a handgun, which he purchased at retail, apparently by lying on a federal form and clearing a background check.

The anti-gun crowd, which includes far too many reporters and editors who ought to do some homework before sitting down at a keyboard, hates guns and ultimately wants them all banned. That crowd's misleading use of data to accomplish this should tell us all we need to know about the nobleness of their cause.

Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week (www.gunweek.com).

tankgeezer
09-14-2008, 09:22 AM
Would this be available to the socially mis-aligned? :)
I had typed a missive about this device and the socially misaligned, but the system ate it,, so i'll recap short form.
The barrel, upper receiver are not controlled components, so most anyone 18 yrs or older can purchase them. the rest of the weapon, the lower receiver, with all of the workings in it, shoulder stock etc. is a controlled component, (it carries the serial number) and a purchaser would have to go through the same paperwork, background checks waiting periods etc. as would for an entire firearm. So these people would be subject to all federal, state, and local laws governing firearms possession.
Only those socially misaligned people with a criminal, or adjudication history , or some other disqualification of record would be unable to purchase anything but the barrel. a barrel is not considered a weapon. For purposes of legal order, and organization, the Receiver for a long arm, or frame for handgun are the controlled, and regulated part. Other specialized components may be regulated for other reasons, (full auto sears,short shotgun barrels, things like that) .

redcoat
09-14-2008, 05:56 PM
Here in the United States if someone is breaking into your house and " YOUR IN FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE" you will have a justified shooting. That's why God invented screw drivers, im sure the dead bad guy will end up with one in his hand....:) On the other hand if you shoot someone in the back while they are running away, you will have problems.

The law is the same on this side of the pond as yours.
You have the right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, your family, and your property.

The difference is how juries define 'reasonable'

tankgeezer
09-14-2008, 07:24 PM
The law is the same on this side of the pond as yours.
You have the right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, your family, and your property.

The difference is how juries define 'reasonable'
State laws vary,but in many of them, Deadly force is allowed for the protection of people, but not of property. in some states you may fire on someone only if they pose an immediate threat of death, or grievous bodily harm. Which sadly, means that you may hold the door for them as they walk out of your place carrying your property. If you back shoot a burglar, or shoot them when they are not a legal threat, they will be jailed for a misdemeanor, you will be jailed for a felony.
The law does not say alot about non lethal responses by homeowners, so if you like, you can tap dance on his head, and say he slipped on the cord of your tv while exiting, Most police will think that an unfortunate accident....

herman2
09-19-2008, 03:28 PM
If a burglar walks away with my TV, I'll be happy, cause it's too heavy and ugly for me to get rid of. But if I did own a LCD Tv like the rich boys then dam right I'd be hopping mad that I couldn't use force on the burglar....this law SUCKS!

tankgeezer
11-09-2008, 02:10 PM
This is how its done in America, and part of what the 2nd. Ammendment covers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AYG4y5et5g Denny Crane, (Bill Shatner,) on gun control.

Panzerknacker
11-09-2008, 06:31 PM
God save the...second amendment.

tankgeezer
11-09-2008, 08:17 PM
Here, Here!! I'll drink to that!

BriteLite
11-10-2008, 12:34 AM
"Thank God for guns huh Johhny?" LOL

When I am confronted by someone declaring guns should be banned I ask them what they will do if one night while sleeping they discover an intruder in their house. The usual answer "Call 911". If in the area police might arrive in 3-5 minutes. Now what? You and your family will have to survive until the authorities arrive. I usually hear silence at this point.

I will call 911 after the problem is dealt with. It is unrealistic to believe the police can protect my family 24/7 given time and distance to respond to each crisis.

The right "to keep and bear arms" is crystal clear to me.

herman2
11-10-2008, 09:11 AM
Well, if your country wasnít so ramped with gun crimes then maybe the right to bear arms would not be such an understatement. In Canada, taking into consideration the per capita population difference, we have significantly lower gun crimes than USA. WHY?, because we donít believe in the right to bear arms and we trust our police to do the job efficiently without having to resort to weapons. The gun culture in USA has instilled upon American citizens an uneven perception of what is considered normal. Although it is in the US Constitution, it doesnít mean that itís acceptable to all. But when Charleton heston the Great Moses stands up with a rifle at prior NRA meetings, then no wonder we think it is great to own a gun.Canada has itís own gun problems but not to the extent of the USA. We may carry a long stick instead like the Rock in Walking Tall:)

tankgeezer
11-10-2008, 01:44 PM
Well, if your country wasnít so ramped with gun crimes then maybe the right to bear arms would not be such an understatement. In Canada, taking into consideration the per capita population difference, we have significantly lower gun crimes than USA. WHY?, because we donít believe in the right to bear arms and we trust our police to do the job efficiently without having to resort to weapons. The gun culture in USA has instilled upon American citizens an uneven perception of what is considered normal. Although it is in the US Constitution, it doesnít mean that itís acceptable to all. But when Charleton heston the Great Moses stands up with a rifle at prior NRA meetings, then no wonder we think it is great to own a gun.Canada has itís own gun problems but not to the extent of the USA. We may carry a long stick instead like the Rock in Walking Tall:)

In a free society there are many challenges created by that very freedom. Its part of the price of being free, as is vigilance. The vid clip was posted mostly in jest, but does represent the responsibility that each citizen has in seeing to their own safety. As was said earlier, the police can not be everywhere at once,(unless you happen to live next to a donut shop) so even if you are able to call 911, there is little guarantee you will be alive to receive them.( I will stipulate that the greater part of breakins do not result in mortal conflict ) If you have the gift of time, it is better to evacuate, then call police, and wait for them to do their job from a safe location. This is the smart play. But circumstances are not always in favor of escape, leaving you in the midnight hour awakening to a looming figure holding a gun, or knife to your person demanding you surrender whatever it is they think you have. Sadly in this case, there isnt much one can do but acquiesce, and hope for a break in order to summon help, or act on your own.
Just having a forearm is no insurance that you will win the encounter, everyone in the house learning its proper safe use from a qualified instructor, and having a plan in case it needs to be used, (one your whole family is familiar with) and having the means of alarm, and defense in place where it may be gotten to and utilized effectively in a crisis.
This type of plan is little different from a family fire drill/evacuation plan many wise people have, and practice. The whole point is to survive,by use of deadly force if need be.
Home invasions are on the increase world wide,as are other types of violent crime. Usually driven by criminal gangs,or drugged up morons.
There are non-lethal devices for home protection, the tazer, chemical sprays, and even a booby trap device that will empty a large can of mace into a house if the place is invaded, making it too difficult to go through, so they leave. Just dont come home drunk, and forget about it,,,:mrgreen:

Rising Sun*
11-11-2008, 07:43 AM
Just having a forearm is no insurance that you will win the encounter ...

It's gotta be a lot better than not having a forearm, 'cos without a forearm you ain't got a hand with a finger to pull the trigger. ;) :D


... everyone in the house learning its proper safe use from a qualified instructor, and having a plan in case it needs to be used, (one your whole family is familiar with) and having the means of alarm, and defense in place where it may be gotten to and utilized effectively in a crisis.
This type of plan is little different from a family fire drill/evacuation plan many wise people have, and practice. The whole point is to survive,by use of deadly force if need be.
Home invasions are on the increase world wide,as are other types of violent crime. Usually driven by criminal gangs,or drugged up morons.

I can't follow this kind of thinking.

Maybe you live in a more violent or fearful part of the world than I do, but in the area I've lived in, in the same house, since the early '80s we've had within a kilometre or so of my house a couple of very nasty home invasions and abductions and sexual assaults of young teenage girls; a drug gang shooting gone wrong in the street, by shooting the wrong bloke, as these blokes aren't rocket scientists; an armed robbery at a pub with a fatal shooting of guard (which could have been avoided if the civilian dummies who run the police call centre had worked out that a couple of blokes sitting in a car in boiler suits etc was a bit suspicious, as the caller rightly worked out); a few other nasty home invasions; and no doubt lots of other nasty crimes I don't know about because they don't make the papers.

I got rid of my guns after several of the offences I mentioned, partly becuase kids were on the way and I figured that an inaccessilbe unloaded gun is no use in an emergency but a readily accessible loaded gun in the house is far more likely to harm one of my kids than be of use when some mongrel appears at the end of my bed at 3 a.m. with a shotgun and cable ties.

I don't feel the need to be armed against the very, very, very remote chance of a home invasion because, despite there being a few very nasty ones in my area over more than a quarter of a century, the odds are still so small that it's not worth worrying about.

It seems to some of us here that some Americans are unduly fearful of being attacked, whether in their homes or as a nation, and that they expend too much effort in preparing their defences against very remote risks. Sure, there are some people here who take the same view, but they're no more likely to be attacked than I am. They just worry about it more and want to be armed against things that have almost no chance of happening to them. The rest of us just get on with life, accepting that arming ourselves against the trivial risk of a home invasion is about as sensible as refusing to go outside in case we get a melanoma.

And I had a melanoma about a dozen years ago. That hasn't stopped me going out in the sun or surf, but if I adopted the same approach to that as the "arm yourself against a possible home invasion" crowd I'd have spent the last dozen years in a dark room smothering myself in sunscreen.

I just don't see the point in taking extreme steps to protect oneself against very remote risks.

tankgeezer
11-11-2008, 12:25 PM
Quote:
"Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
Just having a forearm is no insurance that you will win the encounter ...
It's gotta be a lot better than not having a forearm, 'cos without a forearm you ain't got a hand with a finger to pull the trigger."

There I go typing without my glasses again,, Ha! no matter, I know folks from other lands do not understand our thing about firearms, (or forearms for that matter,)this is just the way we are.And there are some who would never consider owning a gun of any kind. I live in a pretty safe place, and do not keep a firearm at the ready, I do have a tazer in case of trouble,, and chemicals too. Since its just my old dog and me, no reason to go Navarone, out the window for us once the mace is loosed.
There are places, mostly inner cities, where trouble can almost be counted on, so there you will find most such types of home defense. Most Americans do not keep firearms for home defense, just the usual hunting ,and marksmanship stuff. (if they keep one at all,) Home alarm systems are quite popular though. The clip I posted shows a man defending himself against a determined person. And though he will not face punishment for shooting the criminal, he will face charges of going armed in public, and having a concealed weapon. Its up to the jury to decide what that will bring,, in many cases the least level of offense if anything. The gun he used will however be confiscated, requiring a judge's order to be returned. We have a saying here, "Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6"

redcoat
11-14-2008, 06:17 AM
.

I just don't see the point in taking extreme steps to protect oneself against very remote risks.I agree, even if we had the same gun laws as in America I still wouldn't have a gun in my home. The risk to my family from having a gun in the house far outweighs any risk from intruders.

ps, In the most recent poll on gun laws that I've been able to find, 79% of Brits would like stricter gun laws, and only 5% wanted laws on guns to be relaxed.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/16990/Britons-Aim-Tougher-Gun-Laws.aspx

BriteLite
11-14-2008, 04:43 PM
The problem with not having guns is that most criminals break the law while in possession of a weapon, many times a firearm. Not trying to come off as macho man but I will not allow someone to put their hands on me or my loved ones intent on bodily harm. I will soon be 58. I am too damn old to get invilved in a physical altercation.;) Law abiding citizens own guns that are registered to the them at the time of purchase. Firearms used in the commission of criminal activities are illegally imported or stolen.Laws making the possession of non-hunting firearms by private individuals illegal would mean little to criminals. And I really don't know how our government could legislate illegal weapons out of existence.

I live in a small town about 20 miles from Atlanta which is a major metropolis. I chose to live here due to the traffic congestion and the crime rate in certain areas. I drive to and work an area that happens to have the highest rate of capital crimes in Atlanta. I legally carry a firearm. Over the last 10 years I have drawn my pistol when working quite late. Thankfully I have not
discharge my weapon but in 2 cases I am certain I would have been assaulted by multiple individuals. I sincerely believe displaying a weapon saved me a trip to the hospital or possibly the funeral home.

32Bravo
11-15-2008, 04:15 AM
The problem with not having guns is that most criminals break the law while in possession of a weapon, many times a firearm. Not trying to come off as macho man but I will not allow someone to put their hands on me or my loved ones intent on bodily harm. I will soon be 58. I am too damn old to get invilved in a physical altercation.;) Law abiding citizens own guns that are registered to the them at the time of purchase. Firearms used in the commission of criminal activities are illegally imported or stolen.Laws making the possession of non-hunting firearms by private individuals illegal would mean little to criminals. And I really don't know how our government could legislate illegal weapons out of existence.

I live in a small town about 20 miles from Atlanta which is a major metropolis. I chose to live here due to the traffic congestion and the crime rate in certain areas. I drive to and work an area that happens to have the highest rate of capital crimes in Atlanta. I legally carry a firearm. Over the last 10 years I have drawn my pistol when working quite late. Thankfully I have not
discharge my weapon but in 2 cases I am certain I would have been assaulted by multiple individuals. I sincerely believe displaying a weapon saved me a trip to the hospital or possibly the funeral home.

Sometimes, I feel we Brits and you Americans are much further apart in our way of thinking than merely the width of the Atlantic. We have different histories and our cultures have developed seperately, for the most part. We have in the past had our share of bandits and highwaymen, but it doesn't compare with the 'frontier culture' of the early American settlers which, in my opinion, has evolved into the situation in the US today.

British soldiers are trained to think of the rifle as being almost a part of themselves. It becomes a part of our psyche. Yet, I must confess that since leaving the forces, I haven't touched a rifle let alone fired one, and I don't miss it. :oops:


The argument here would be that if we all armed ourselves against marauders, the more the likelihood that the maraurders would become better armed and more likely to use their weapons.


By the way, like the new emoticons - must keep practising. :army: :lol:

Rising Sun*
11-15-2008, 06:01 AM
Sometimes, I feel we Brits and you Americans are much further apart in our way of thinking than merely the width of the Atlantic. We have different histories and our cultures have developed seperately, for the most part. We have in the past had our share of bandits and highwaymen, but it doesn't compare with the 'frontier culture' of the early American settlers which, in my opinion, has evolved into the situation in the US today.


Then why didn't it happen in Australia where there was also a violent frontier, and a much more violent and brutal basis to the nation in the convict era beforehand? Or in New Zealand, where full-on wars were fought during the prime American frontier period 1840-80?

No disrepect to our American cousins, but the events which led to the War of Independence were relatively minor in the whole scheme of things. They were more in the nature of serious irritants to the colonial merchants than the denials of human rights they have subsequently been portrayed as. "No taxation without representation" as a rallying cry would have been meaningless to many of the newly industrialised British workers drawn into Blake's 'dark satanic mills' in the second half of the 18th century.

I think that part of the difference between Americans and other nations which derived from British settlement is that America was in part populated initially by dissenters from the English orthodoxy and prospered, despite being reliant upon convict labour as was Australia but in an earlier period in the plantations and, unlike Australia, as indentured labour for free settlers rather than punishment battalions under the Crown.

By the time Australia and New Zealand were being discovered, never mind settled, America was an established nation in waiting (even allowing for the complexities caused by, for example, what is now New York being held by the Dutch). It had a solid core of intellectual, professional and commercial people who were free of the oppressive class systems of England and Europe. This showed in the Declaration of Independence which incorporated and expressed the then radical ideas of the likes of Thomas Paine which were regarded as a form of political heresy in England at the time, while France was undergoing a revolution based upon the same radical notions that all men are equal and other notions embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

The end result was that America broke away from the stifling class system of England and Europe partly because it was an aggressive mercantile community, and prospered because of it.

That same mercantile aggression brought with it the usual fear of the rich that they will be robbed. Which is seen almost daily in American defence and political statements about defending America and keeping it strong.

Countries like Australia and New Zealand never achieved, and never will achieve, anything like the dominance America has. They were therefore forced to develop a different way of protecting what they acquired. Which, oddly enough, was to hitch their wagon to America during and post-WWII, although New Zealand unhitched its wagon a bit over nuclear issues.

So, on one interpretation, it might be seen that America developed a culture of standing on its own two feet to acquire and defend what it acquired, while much smaller countries like Australia and New Zealand developed a culture of looking to a bigger brother to protect them, which was the inevitable result of being colonies which never asserted their own independence but merely transferred their dependence from Britain to America. Thus, peoples with no history of aggressive national independence are unable to understand the thinking of a people with a long and strong history of aggressive national indepedence, part of which involves a strong notion of self-reliance in many respects including self-defence at the personal level by gun or otherwise.

(This made sense when I started it, but whatever sense it had got a bit lost in the time taken to type it. :( Anyway, it can stay there for discussion, or derision. )


British soldiers are trained to think of the rifle as being almost a part of themselves.

I think that is an international standard.


It becomes a part of our psyche. Yet, I must confess that since leaving the forces, I haven't touched a rifle let alone fired one, and I don't miss it. :oops:

I don't think the gun is the issue.

It's why people want one.

I've hardly fired one in about twenty five years, apart from a .22 a few times a year or two ago on a club range with my son (And a waste of time that was from my point of view, as all the club guns were scoped!).

I don't miss not having guns, although a few were always around the house when I was a kid and I was keen on them until my early twenties. Then I just gradually lost interest in shooting defenceless rabbits etc in what was a hopelessly unfair contest. Meanwhile some of my keener mates used to talk about going 'hunting'.

'Hunting' a rabbit? Yeah! Right!

Hunt a pig, maybe, because if you miss or wound a wild boar the galloping mad bastard might come back and slash you, which seems a bit more of a fair contest. Especially fair when, as is bound to happen, your gun malfunctions at the critical moment. When it comes down to a race to avoid a tusk up the clacker and reaching a tree for safety, that seems pretty fair to me. And to the boar, probably. :o



The argument here would be that if we all armed ourselves against marauders, the more the likelihood that the maraurders would become better armed and more likely to use their weapons.

It's the chicken and the egg problem though, isn't it?

In another form, it's the police argument that the crims are better armed so we have to be better armed, which just creates another arms race.

While I accept that it's a lot harder to work out why it happens and to devise and implement ways of changing it than just to try to outgun the opposition, the real problem in most instances is why do a few people in the community choose to arm themselves and a tiny proportion of them actually use their weapons, whether guns, knives, machetes, or whatever?

Rising Sun*
11-15-2008, 06:13 AM
Over the last 10 years I have drawn my pistol when working quite late. Thankfully I have not
discharge my weapon but in 2 cases I am certain I would have been assaulted by multiple individuals. I sincerely believe displaying a weapon saved me a trip to the hospital or possibly the funeral home.

I'm glad I don't work where you do.

However, given a choice between having to carry a gun to save your life from murderous muggers or whatever and not carrying a gun in a society where the risk of harm was so low that nobody needed to arm themselves, which would you prefer?

There has been a steady and significant worsening here for the past twenty years or so of weapons-related street crime. I'd like to work out why that happened and change it so we could go back to the time when our police didn't carry any weapon apart from a small cosh in their pocket (and rarely used it on anyone except a heavy crim handcuffed to a chair in a police station. ;) )

32Bravo
11-15-2008, 07:01 AM
Then why didn't it happen in Australia where there was also a violent frontier, and a much more violent and brutal basis to the nation in the convict era beforehand? Or in New Zealand, where full-on wars were fought during the prime American frontier period 1840-80?

Because you, as do the Kiwis, play cricket, old chap. :lol:



No disrepect to our American cousins, but the events which led to the War of Independence were relatively minor in the whole scheme of things.


The Seven Years War had much t do with it. The rest was as a result of a certain niavity on the part of the Brits.



I think that part of the difference between Americans and other nations which derived from British settlement is that America was in part populated initially by dissenters from the English orthodoxy and prospered, despite being reliant upon convict labour as was Australia but in an earlier period in the plantations and, unlike Australia, as indentured labour for free settlers rather than punishment battalions under the Crown.

By the time Australia and New Zealand were being discovered, never mind settled, America was an established nation in waiting (even allowing for the complexities caused by, for example, what is now New York being held by the Dutch). It had a solid core of intellectual, professional and commercial people who were free of the oppressive class systems of England and Europe. This showed in the Declaration of Independence which incorporated and expressed the then radical ideas of the likes of Thomas Paine which were regarded as a form of political heresy in England at the time, while France was undergoing a revolution based upon the same radical notions that all men are equal and other notions embodied in the Declaration of Independence.


Australia and New Zealand's stories are different to that of America's. I don't think a direct comparison really works. Interesting that Thomas Paine had such a roller-coaster political life. He was probably inspired by John Locke, as were the likes of Jefferson and Franklin. So much so that one could be forgiven for thinking Locke had written the Declaration of Independence.



The end result was that America broke away from the stifling class system of England and Europe ... ...and developed their own. :lol:



So, on one interpretation, it might be seen that America developed a culture of standing on its own two feet to acquire and defend what it acquired, while much smaller countries like Australia and New Zealand developed a culture of looking to a bigger brother to protect them, which was the inevitable result of being colonies which never asserted their own independence but merely transferred their dependence from Britain to America. Thus, peoples with no history of aggressive national independence are unable to understand the thinking of a people with a long and strong history of aggressive national indepedence, part of which involves a strong notion of self-reliance in many respects including self-defence at the personal level by gun or otherwise.

(This made sense when I started it, but whatever sense it had got a bit lost in the time taken to type it. :( Anyway, it can stay there for discussion, or derision. )


It still makes sense.

I'm sure there is much truth in all you say, but I don't think that that is the whole story. The lawlessness in the frontier states contributed much to the gun carrying ethos. And the fact that the individual states have a certain independence from the Federal government also contributes. A certain mindset as to one state attacking another etc. 'Remember the Alamo' and all that.



I think that is an international standard.

Of course. It just surprises me that after many years of gun-toting I never miss it. Neither do my chums. They much prefer to arm themselves with a pint. :D




I don't think the gun is the issue.

It's why people want one.

Indeed.



I've hardly fired one in about twenty five years, apart from a .22 a few times a year or two ago on a club range with my son (And a waste of time that was from my point of view, as all the club guns were scoped!).

I don't miss not having guns, although a few were always around the house when I was a kid and I was keen on them until my early twenties. Then I just gradually lost interest in shooting defenceless rabbits etc in what was a hopelessly unfair contest. Meanwhile some of my keener mates used to talk about going 'hunting'.

'Hunting' a rabbit? Yeah! Right!

As I read the first paragraph, I was wondering about 'Bunnie-bashing'...that's a relief! :army: I'll stand down. :lol:



It's the chicken and the egg problem though, isn't it?



It is. I was reading certain articles on the web which discussed the arming of former Gurkha soldiers employed as security guards on cruise liners. Interestingly, it was an American newspaper (I'll have to check if I can find it again, when I have time). Anyway, they were making the same comments regarding escalation. A certain irony there, methinks. :neutral:

We still pride ourselves that our Bobbies are unarmed. However this can become hazardous for them on account of the same drug/gang related crime which has increased over the past twenty to thirty years.

navyson
11-15-2008, 07:06 AM
Quick question.......if Bobbies in England aren't armed....do they have weapons that they can get from their vehicles? Police here in the US have sidearms, but also can keep shotguns in their vehicles.

Rising Sun*
11-15-2008, 07:11 AM
Quick question.......if Bobbies in England aren't armed....do they have weapons that they can get from their vehicles? Police here in the US have sidearms, but also can keep shotguns in their vehicles.

It won't help foot patrol coppers.

Not that we've got any left, which is part of the reason our crime rate has increased.

Maybe the Poms didn't make that mistake.

32Bravo
11-15-2008, 07:14 AM
Quick question.......if Bobbies in England aren't armed....do they have weapons that they can get from their vehicles? Police here in the US have sidearms, but also can keep shotguns in their vehicles.

My understanding is that they do not. There are Special Patrol Groups (SPG) or some such like that they are able to call upon when armed criminals are encountered. These are pretty controversial on account of people being shot in circumstances which might be described as unnecessary use of lethal force.

32Bravo
11-15-2008, 07:17 AM
It won't help foot patrol coppers.

Not that we've got any left, which is part of the reason our crime rate has increased.

Maybe the Poms didn't make that mistake.


Again we face the same problems and there is a great cry for more Bobbies on the beat, as there aren't enough of them. However, the Bobbies complain that they are bogged down with paperwork, but there has been some success stories some inner-city areas where the Met. have managed to get more Plod out there.

But it needs to be coupled with community action.

32Bravo
11-15-2008, 07:21 AM
Here's a recent incidence:

Shot barrister's case throws spotlight on gun police

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/11/police

I wasn't there and am not in possession of the full facts. But from what I saw on the news and the newspapers, and the reasons the Police gave for opening fire, it seems to me that his being shot was unnecessary.

Rising Sun*
11-15-2008, 07:25 AM
We still pride ourselves that our Bobbies are unarmed. However this can become hazardous for them on account of the same drug/gang related crime which has increased over the past twenty to thirty years.

That's the same period during which we went from being a country where you could cop a flogging from a bunch of thugs, but it was usually fists and boots.

Knives were weak dago acts, about the level of biting and scratching.

Now a lot of Anglo kids here carry knives, along with various other ethnic groups of more recent arrival who tend not only to carry them but to use them rather more enthusiastically than the Anglos.

So, what happened in the past two or three decades to change your and my cultures, where knife crime is a major concern in both countries, and entirely foreign to our modern developement until recently?

Migration is one possibility, but we had a lot of migrants fron knife cultures post-war who never introduced it here.

Popular culture, such as television and film? I don't see much evidence of it there.

Video games? Mostly guns and blow up stuff.

So, where did it come from?

navyson
11-15-2008, 07:26 AM
It won't help foot patrol coppers.

Not that we've got any left, which is part of the reason our crime rate has increased.

Maybe the Poms didn't make that mistake.

I don't think we have officers on foot patrol. Maybe still in the big northern cities (i.e. New York, Chicago), but I've not seen any in the cities I've lived in in TX.
Poor Bobbies, hope the Special Patrol Groups (?) can get places quickly.

Rising Sun*
11-15-2008, 07:31 AM
Here's a recent incidence:

Shot barrister's case throws spotlight on gun police

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/11/police

I wasn't there and am not in possession of the full facts. But from what I saw on the news and the newspapers, and the reasons the Police gave for opening fire, it seems to me that his being shot was unnecessary.

Maybe, but once you confront police with a gun you have to expect a bad result if you don't put it down.

Anyway, it evens things up a bit if the cops get to shoot a lawyer now and again. :D

32Bravo
11-15-2008, 07:32 AM
That's the same period during which we went from being a country where you could cop a flogging from a bunch of thugs, but it was usually fists and boots.

Knives were weak dago acts, about the level of biting and scratching.

Now a lot of Anglo kids here carry knives, along with various other ethnic groups of more recent arrival who tend not only to carry them but to use them rather more enthusiastically than the Anglos.

So, what happened in the past two or three decades to change your and my cultures, where knife crime is a major concern in both countries, and entirely foreign to our modern developement until recently?

Migration is one possibility, but we had a lot of migrants fron knife cultures post-war who never introduced it here.

Popular culture, such as television and film? I don't see much evidence of it there.

Video games? Mostly guns and blow up stuff.

So, where did it come from?

In Britain? I think it probably stems from the collapse of the manufacturing industry which came about in the late Seventies, early Eighties. Whole communities left without employment. The despair and then the crime which follows, and the opportunities it offers for organized crime to get into these community areas with drugs etc. Which creates more crime in order to feed the drug dependency.

That's probably way over simplified. I'm sure that the crime culture has evolved a lot since then, but I think that is the root cause.

32Bravo
11-15-2008, 07:35 AM
Maybe, but once you confront police with a gun you have to expect a bad result if you don't put it down.

Anyway, it evens things up a bit if the cops get to shoot a lawyer now and again. :D

:lol:

The streets and buildings had been evacuated hours before he was shot. When he did open up, he was shooting at nothing.

Someone just wanted to pull the trigger.

Rising Sun*
11-15-2008, 07:48 AM
In Britain? I think it probably stems from the collapse of the manufacturing industry which came about in the late Seventies, early Eighties. Whole communities left without employment. The despair and then the crime which follows, and the opportunities it offers for organized crime to get into these community areas with drugs etc. Which creates more crime in order to feed the drug dependency.

That's probably way over simplified. I'm sure that the crime culture has evolved a lot since then, but I think that is the root cause.

I doubt that the average 'salt of the earth' working man converted to a life of pointless violent crime just because he lost his job. Maybe it affected his kids if the industrial collapse denied them employment, which is quite possible if they grew up in despair and were fed by the "everyone has the right to paradise on earth" bullshit which passed and passes for elements of education.

You and I didn't get that bullshit. Then again, I expect we both knew plenty of kids who, in the modern world, could well have been the knife criminals etc we're talking about, but for whatever reason they weren't then.

Violent crime is mostly a youth problem, here anyway, with youth running up to mid 20s.

The morons who do it aren't necessarily druggies or unemployed. Just morons of a thuggish nature who enjoy hurting people or are willing to do it with little or no provocation.

I think a lot of it has to do with macho bullshit, execept where blokes I knew got off on bragging about how they'd kicked someone in the head now they're bragging about stabbing him. Same personalities, same motivation, just a worse action.

32Bravo
11-15-2008, 08:00 AM
I doubt that the average 'salt of the earth' working man converted to a life of pointless violent crime just because he lost his job. Maybe it affected his kids if the industrial collapse denied them employment, which is quite possible if they grew up in despair and were fed by the "everyone has the right to paradise on earth" bullshit which passed and passes for elements of education.

You and I didn't get that bullshit. Then again, I expect we both knew plenty of kids who, in the modern world, could well have been the knife criminals etc we're talking about, but for whatever reason they weren't then.

Violent crime is mostly a youth problem, here anyway, with youth running up to mid 20s.

The morons who do it aren't necessarily druggies or unemployed. Just morons of a thuggish nature who enjoy hurting people or are willing to do it with little or no provocation.

I think a lot of it has to do with macho bullshit, execept where blokes I knew got off on bragging about how they'd kicked someone in the head now they're bragging about stabbing him. Same personalities, same motivation, just a worse action.

Sure. The problem in Britain was the divide between the 'Industrial-north' and the prosperous 'South'.

When society doesn't allow opportunites for people to improve their lot in life, then they turn on that society.

I'm no sociologist, but I do understand the 'Forming, storming, norming and performing' type of theories. Council estates developing their own pecking orders. These in time become Chav estates with organized crime encouraging the dealers etc.

Add to that the permissiveness which emerged in the sixties and the resulting single-parent families, where mothers have a hard time controlling their adolescent sons who are looking for male role-models and usually find them among the teenage gangs.

Rising Sun*
11-15-2008, 08:17 AM
:lol:

The streets and buildings had been evacuated hours before he was shot. When he did open up, he was shooting at nothing.

Someone just wanted to pull the trigger.


I won't comment further on that particular case as I don't know enough about it.

However, and despite being more or less a civil libertarian involved in legal aid since the early 1970s when it was a guaranteed path to professional oblviion (whch seems to have worked out exactly that way in my case :D), and despite having contempt for renegade cops who act outside anything approximating the law, I have a lot of sympathy for cops who are judged after a difficult event by people who weren't there and who weren't operating under the pressures the police faced.

All police forces have a proportion of arseholes, just like every other occupation, but the bulk of them try to do a very difficult job well, and for the most part they do so most of the time.

In civilian life, cops are the only people the community expects to take the risk of being killed, or killing, as part of their job. We want them to deal with people we don't want to or can't deal with. If we were armed and confronted with someone a cop kills in an 'us or them' situation, I suspect most of us would shoot the other person. But the poor old cops are expected to refrain from shooting some nutcase rushing at them with a knife, axe, or sword because, according to the armchair experts who weren't there, the cop should have used karate or shot the attacker in the leg or performed some other act of magic.

If I was the cop in that situation, about fifteen to ten feet on the gallop from me, the attacker is going to get shot, aimed at the centre of the body mass. I want to go home to my kids.

Actually, after reflecting upon being home with my kids, I might take my chances with tackling the armed offender unarmed. It'd be easier, and a lot quicker and less painful regardless of the result, than dealing with my feral fifteen year old daughter. ;) :D

Where someone is at risk of getting out into the community with their weapon, even if threatening nobody immediately, why not plug him if he's going to the boundary? One thing is for sure. If we've had a bead on him in a nominally contained area and he gets out of it and hurts anyone, we are in more shit than a Werribee duck.

The cops are too often in a no win situation, and it's made worse by the clowns in the force who examine every little action after the event without regard to the realities of cops who had to make split second decisions.

I'm not defending outright police murders like the Brazilian on the train in London, but even that one was probably done with the best of motives. Not that it excuses the perpetrators from facing the proper charges, which seems highly unlikely.

32Bravo
11-15-2008, 08:37 AM
I see where you are coming from and I think that most civilized people would agree with you.

The problem, as I see it, and which concerns me, is that if the police are allowed to gun someone like said lawyer down for behaving like a bit of a pratt, then where does it end?

The use of lethal force should be a last resort and the police be left with no choice. Otherwise, who's next?

I understand that there are situations when one can not be certain as to whether a trigger is about to pulled or not, and in those circumstances I would support the police, but it has to be seen that they had no choice but to resort to lethal force, the uncertainty has to be obvious. In the above situation, the uncertainty was not obvious, and even though said lawyer was shooting wildly from his window, it wasn't a high velocity weapon and there were no obvious targets for him, including police, who were in cover.

I have far more sympathy for the police who shot the Brazilian - not that I have anything against Brazilians, I might add. That was a cock up, but it must have taken some bottle for the police to pursue him, thinking that he was a bomber. In that situation, if he had been a bomber, they had to finish him.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/uk/news/article_1337998.php/British_police_watchdog_Brazilians_killing_was_ter rible_mistake

Similar killings were carried out by the SAS in the Iranian Embassy and it was judged to be jutifiable homicide.

Rising Sun*
11-15-2008, 08:57 AM
Sure. The problem in Britain was the divide between the 'Industrial-north' and the prosperous 'South'.

Is it that simple?

I'd expect that the problems we're discussing occur all over the place, wherever there are pockets of severe poverty / disadvantage / whatever people want to call it.


When society doesn't allow opportunites for people to improve their lot in life, then they turn on that society.

Or is there a component of no-hopers breeding another generation of no-hopers who imbibe with their mother's milk a resentment of the rest of society so that they can spend their lives being victims of society, ably aided by people like me who, with the best of intentions, reinforce that view and keep pulling their nuts out of the vice?

What is the difference between them and their siblings, in many cases I've seen, where one of them rejects that life and goes on to become someone who is everything they're not?

I'd guess a lot of it is due to personal intelligence, grit and luck, but also to a fortunate combination of other influences such as teachers and others in the community.

Which (having innocently :lol: but conveniently offered those features) leads me to infer that it's largely a matter of luck if somone manages to haul him or her self out of such situations.


I'm no sociologist, but I do understand the 'Forming, storming, norming and performing' type of theories. Council estates developing their own pecking orders. These in time become Chav estates with organized crime encouraging the dealers etc.

That is where 'society' could change things.

Concentrating problem people in an area is going to cause problems.

We did it here, again with the best of intentions, in the 1950s - 70s when we took people out of slums; bulldozed the slums; and put the people in rather good high rise flats. Guess what became the new slums?


Add to that the permissiveness which emerged in the sixties and the resulting single-parent families, where mothers have a hard time controlling their adolescent sons who are looking for male role-models and usually find them among the teenage gangs.

I'd be interested to see a comparison of figures of single mothers pre-war and, say, 1960s.

There is no shortage of personal accounts of people who grew up pre-war with just a mother, and others brought up by aunts and the like who turned out to be mum.

Given the boundless qualities of women as espoused by various feminist writers and activists for the past forty years, I don't see why controlling and properly raising a mere adolescent boy should be beyond women, every one of whom if given the chance to penetrate the glass ceiling could bring peace and prosperity to the world in a moment. :rolleyes: Although Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir and a few others didn't quite manage it when given the opportunity. :rolleyes:

I doubt that all gangs are made up of 'fatherless' boys.

I think the drift to a gang is a mixture of the necessity of survival in an area and the absence of anything better which can be achieved without making one a vulnerable outcast who becomes the prey of gangs.

That is largely the result of a failure in that community, and society at large, to generate a climate where academic and intellectual pursuits and achievements are regarded and rewarded as well as sporting or just local thug achievements.

As for the cure? I don't know. But the current situation sure ain't it.

Rising Sun*
11-15-2008, 09:03 AM
I see where you are coming from and I think that most civilized people would agree with you.

The problem, as I see it, and which concerns me, is that if the police are allowed to gun someone like said lawyer down for behaving like a bit of a pratt, then where does it end?

The use of lethal force should be a last resort and the police be left with no choice. Otherwise, who's next?

I understand that there are situations when one can not be certain as to whether a trigger is about to pulled or not, and in those circumstances I would support the police, but it has to be seen that they had no choice but to resort to lethal force, the uncertainty has to be obvious. In the above situation, the uncertainty was not obvious, and even though said lawyer was shooting wildly from his window, it wasn't a high velocity weapon and there were no obvious targets for him, including police, who were in cover.

I have far more sympathy for the police who shot the Brazilian - not that I have anything against Brazilians, I might add. That was a cock up, but it must have taken some bottle for the police to pursue him, thinking that he was a bomber. In that situation, if he had been a bomber, they had to finish him.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/uk/news/article_1337998.php/British_police_watchdog_Brazilians_killing_was_ter rible_mistake

Similar killings were carried out by the SAS in the Iranian Embassy and it was judged to be jutifiable homicide.

I think we're of one mind, but you're better informed on the lawyer shooting than I.

I am, however, disappointed to find that you have nothing against Brazilians.

Given a choice, I'd be hard up against a Brazilian. ;):o

32Bravo
11-15-2008, 10:11 AM
Is it that simple?


No, it's just a part of it.

There are many factors which come together to form a certain synergy.

The same things occurred in London's Docklands when goods began to be transported in containers.

What we are describing are large unskilled labour forces whose means of livelihood have been removed on account of changes in market forces or technology.



I'd expect that the problems we're discussing occur all over the place, wherever there are pockets of severe poverty / disadvantage / whatever people want to call it.



Or is there a component of no-hopers breeding another generation of no-hopers who imbibe with their mother's milk a resentment of the rest of society so that they can spend their lives being victims of society, ably aided by people like me who, with the best of intentions, reinforce that view and keep pulling their nuts out of the vice?

Yes, and no.

In Britain as in many places, there were generations of unskilled manual workers who sold their labour in labour intensive manufacturing.

Communities grew around these industries, and in many instances there was no incentive, or even means, to better oneself. Many fathers would tell their sons, for example, that 'If the pit was good enough for me, it's good enough for you.' what else could they aspire to? The education system did not lend itself to their advancement.



What is the difference between them and their siblings, in many cases I've seen, where one of them rejects that life and goes on to become someone who is everything they're not?

Inspiration, ability, spirit...etc.



I'd guess a lot of it is due to personal intelligence, grit and luck, but also to a fortunate combination of other influences such as teachers and others in the community.

Which (having innocently :lol: but conveniently offered those features) leads me to infer that it's largely a matter of luck if somone manages to haul him or her self out of such situations.


Another synergy thing, which is probably different for each individual?

I was chatting with a general, whom I happen to know, on one occasion. He was asking me about myself and how I had managed to succeed after leaving the Army. I told him I got lucky. He told me we make our own luck. The truth is probably somewhere in between.



That is where 'society' could change things.

Concentrating problem people in an area is going to cause problems.

We did it here, again with the best of intentions, in the 1950s - 70s when we took people out of slums; bulldozed the slums; and put the people in rather good high rise flats. Guess what became the new slums?


Slums breeding slums?

Take people out of the gutter but not the gutter out of the people?

Environment is an important factor both the physical environment and the social environment. Very difficult for a young person to break away from the herd.




I doubt that all gangs are made up of 'fatherless' boys.


Me too, but there are many fatherless boys in gangs. many of them also beat up their mothers.



I think the drift to a gang is a mixture of the necessity of survival in an area and the absence of anything better which can be achieved without making one a vulnerable outcast who becomes the prey of gangs.

That is largely the result of a failure in that community, and society at large, to generate a climate where academic and intellectual pursuits and achievements are regarded and rewarded as well as sporting or just local thug achievements.

As for the cure? I don't know. But the current situation sure ain't it.

It's the environment thingie again. People need to feel proud and be able identify with something which is better than what the gang offers.

Given the current global, economic climate and the unemployment which must result from it, things are likely to become worse before they improve - unless one is a drugs baron.

By the way, I appreciate that your questions are exploratory, and so I'm merely giving my opinion as I see it. :)

32Bravo
11-15-2008, 10:55 AM
As Australia have beaten England 28 - 14 in the Rugby, it's as well we English don't carry guns. :lol:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/english/7728562.stm

Laconia
11-21-2008, 01:51 PM
[QUOTE=herman2

As a Canadian, I may have a different outlook on the American freedoms to bear arms, but I personally advocate for a total pistol ban except for police or military use. What opinions do American WW2 buffs have and why do you feel this way?[/QUOTE]

I disagree. The pistol provides concealment and firepower. In this country the right of self defense is a respected part of our laws. I have personally used a handgun in a self defense action, and I didn't even have to fire a shot. When the miscreant saw I was armed he left the area quickly!

herman2
11-25-2008, 01:00 PM
I disagree. The pistol provides concealment and firepower. In this country the right of self defense is a respected part of our laws. I have personally used a handgun in a self defense action, and I didn't even have to fire a shot. When the miscreant saw I was armed he left the area quickly!

Ya Ya, ...as long as you Americans think with half a brain that concealed pistols are an ok thing to do, you will continue to have serious crime on your streets. Canada is one of the safest countries in the world because we think with a full brain and don't allow handguns for personel use. Constitution rights to bear arms is in my opinion a really backward and stupid law that went out with the abolition of slavery laws.

tankgeezer
11-25-2008, 01:44 PM
Ya Ya, ...as long as you Americans think with half a brain that concealed pistols are an ok thing to do, you will continue to have serious crime on your streets. Canada is one of the safest countries in the world because we think with a full brain and don't allow handguns for personel use. Constitution rights to bear arms is in my opinion a really backward and stupid law that went out with the abolition of slavery laws.

Herman, this topic has been around in many circles, always the same opinions, and always the same answers. Unless it is your intention to stir the pot, this thread has long since run its course.
Unless you have something of substance to add here, your best bet is to refrain. Especially when you disparage anti slavery laws. Are you a pro slavery person? it sounds so from your last post. Do keep in mind that jibbering to incite is not a favored activity here.
As to your opinion about our rights in the U.S., it has been noted, and dismissed.

herman2
11-25-2008, 03:12 PM
Herman, this topic has been around in many circles, always the same opinions, and always the same answers. Unless it is your intention to stir the pot, this thread has long since run its course.
Unless you have something of substance to add here, your best bet is to refrain. Especially when you disparage anti slavery laws. Are you a pro slavery person? it sounds so from your last post. Do keep in mind that jibbering to incite is not a favored activity here.
As to your opinion about our rights in the U.S., it has been noted, and dismissed.

I will make sure that I ask your opinion on what I can say before I post anything. I will behonoured to pm you for your permission to seek permission to post a post. If I even think about posting a post, I shall seek your permission to even think.I am not pro-slavery. I meant to say that the right to bear arms law is a law that should have been abolished when they abolished slavery, meaning the law has been in place too long and that a constitutional change is advocated to ban the right to bear arms. As to your objection to my opinion, it has also been noted and I thank you for your response. If the subject has run its course then maybe you should seek remedies to lock it so its done with.My response was intended to the previous response and was subjective to the prior comment only and not meant to be for you or anyone else. However, if you assume I am stirring the pot, then you are entitled to your opinion but I was not. I was responding to the preceeding post about some guy who thinks its cool to walk around with a handgun. It is my opinion that my opinion is related and relevant to that specific post.

tankgeezer
11-25-2008, 05:35 PM
I will make sure that I ask your opinion on what I can say before I post anything. I will behonoured to pm you for your permission to seek permission to post a post. If I even think about posting a post, I shall seek your permission to even think.I am not pro-slavery. I meant to say that the right to bear arms law is a law that should have been abolished when they abolished slavery, meaning the law has been in place too long and that a constitutional change is advocated to ban the right to bear arms. As to your objection to my opinion, it has also been noted and I thank you for your response. If the subject has run its course then maybe you should seek remedies to lock it so its done with.My response was intended to the previous response and was subjective to the prior comment only and not meant to be for you or anyone else. However, if you assume I am stirring the pot, then you are entitled to your opinion but I was not. I was responding to the preceeding post about some guy who thinks its cool to walk around with a handgun. It is my opinion that my opinion is related and relevant to that specific post.

My post stands, perhaps you should focus your efforts at home where I'm sure you will find many things to "fix" .Then you will have something better to do than worry about the rights of people in other countries. He has the uninfringeable right to think its cool. Whatever rights you may have, the right to judge the U.S.and to pontificate on how our rights, and laws should be structured in order to suit you, is not among them. And just so we are clear, if you dont like our ways,, we dont care. Stay in Canada.

mkenny
11-26-2008, 02:20 AM
The pistol provides concealment and firepower. In this country the right of self defense is a respected part of our laws. I have personally used a handgun in a self defense action, and I didn't even have to fire a shot. When the miscreant saw I was armed he left the area quickly!

Because of this right then the US must be the safest place in the world? The threat of instant retaliation if a criminal pulls a gun on anyone must mean that criminals no longer use guns.

Rising Sun*
11-26-2008, 05:41 AM
I meant to say that the right to bear arms law is a law that should have been abolished when they abolished slavery, meaning the law has been in place too long and that a constitutional change is advocated to ban the right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment confirming the right to bear arms was in 1791.

America abolished slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.

When America abolished slavery, it had just endured the cataclysmic Civil War in which many militia units (being relevant to the reference to militia in the Second Amendment) fought and was facing post-war and frontier conditions, including the absence of anything resembling modern police forces, which reasonably required some citizens to have access to firearms for self-defence. These circumstances militated against any tampering with the Second Amendment right to bear arms when slavery was abolished.

I've never looked into it, but I suspect that fairly recent events such as massacres of schoolchilren and other innocents by nuts with guns which encourage many of us outside America, and some people in America, to believe that we're better off by limiting guns in the community were not an issue in America in 1865.

Rising Sun*
11-26-2008, 05:44 AM
Stay in Canada.

In the quoted instance, support for this sentiment might extend beyond America's borders. ;)

herman2
12-01-2008, 02:11 PM
I suppose if RAPE was in the American Constitution, then that would make it right as well?...oh brother....

A Right to Bear Arms?
Maclean’s reported the following in the July 7 ’08 edition (“Lawless, but Gunless,” p. 58):
A. One-third of Canadians own a gun or guns; 90% of Americans do.
B. Canada has 60 gun murders for every million people annually; the US has 340.
C. Canada annually has 190 total murders per 1 million population; the US has 570.

Of the 190 people per million who are murdered in Canada, 60 die by bullet, 130 by some other means (knife, mostly, one imagines). That’s 31.5% by guns.
Of the 570 people per million murdered in the US, 340 die by bullet, 230 by some other means. That’s 59.6% by gun.
The murder rate overall in the US is 900% of Canada’s.

The appalling statistic here is that in Canada, annually, ca. 4750 and in the US, ca. 145,000 people are violently killed, by our own citizens, by and large. We fight wars abroad to combat terrorism’s threat; is that ironical when we look at the threat from within?
Gun murders in the US account for 60% of such events and in Canada only 32%. Obviously, people don’t murder someone because they have a gun available; it’s more likely that they decide to murder someone and then decide on the means. In Canada, murderers more often resort to knives, clubs or cars, possibly because handguns just aren’t as readily available here. Or does the possession of a handgun actually increase the likelihood that a person will contemplate murder as a way out of a dilemma?


It could be argued that in the heat of the moment, the clean, arms-length death that can be delivered with a gun increases the likelihood of a murder being committed. An angry person might be deterred by the messy nature of hand-to-hand killing, but might not be if a handgun, say, were available and the murder could be done without looking the victim so intimately in the eye.


Also, the “right to bear arms” may contribute to an overall cultural climate in which the use of guns seems to be legitimized, and by extension, the use of violence of all kinds to settle quarrels. Is that what’s behind the enormous difference between the murder rates in the two countries, so similar in so many other ways?

mike M.
12-01-2008, 03:31 PM
I've never looked into it, but I suspect that fairly recent events such as massacres of schoolchilren and other innocents by nuts with guns which encourage many of us outside America, and some people in America, to believe that we're better off by limiting guns in the community were not an issue in America in 1865.

Not even 1865..how about 1955 ? In the 50's it was much easier in America to obtain a gun, almost all stores had them, there were NO waiting periods and we didn't have nut bags shooting up schools or stores...so what has changed from 1950's America to today? I have my suspicions..

herman2
12-01-2008, 03:42 PM
Not even 1865..how about 1955 ? In the 50's it was much easier in America to obtain a gun, almost all stores had them, there were NO waiting periods and we didn't have nut bags shooting up schools or stores...so what has changed from 1950's America to today? I have my suspicions..

Oh, I don't know Mike. I didn't have to go far in the internet to find numerous reports of school shootings by nutbags:

Re:University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Saturday, May 15, 1954

The Phi Delta Theta house held a carnival at their fraternity house Friday night, presumably to celebrate the end of the school year. As any frat party goes, the beverage of choice was beer, and lots of it. Putnam Davis Jr., William Joyner and Allen Long were still drinking beer on Saturday morning, around 7 a.m., when Putnam pulled out a gun and started shooting at his roommates. Putnam had obtained the gun from the car of a former roommate. The entry goes on to say that "during the exchange of gunfire in the dorm room," Putnam is killed while William and Allen are wounded. What is not clear in the entry is who Putnam was exchanging gunfire with; did William or Allen have a gun in the room as well, did another fraternity brother have a gun and respond to Putnam's shootings, or did the police show up and have to kill Putnam? None of those questions are answered in the entry. For statistical purposes, I'm putting Putnam as the instigator of this school shooting, since he shot first.

Source: Reference.com - List of School-Related Acts


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania

Tuesday, January 11, 1955

Five years ago Bob Bechtel's mother requested that her son be hospitalized for psychotic episodes. After being released from the hospital, Bob, then 22, enrolled at Swarthmore College. While at Swarthmore, he lived in Wharton Hall and his classmates taunted, bullied, hazed and degraded him. Today he had finally had enough. He drove to his home in Pottstown, ate a piece of his mother's coconut cake, picked up his .22-caliber rifle and returned to the college. It was in the evening by the time he returned and he began firing upon his classmates. The first bullet struck Francis Holmes Strozier in the head and killed him. Bob fired a few more rounds, realized what he had done and then dropped the rifle to the ground. At his trial two factors swayed the judge to find him not guilty by reason of insanity: the previous hospitalization and a letter from Francis's mother expressing sympathy and forgiveness. He was sent to Farview State Hospital in Waymart. Four years and eight months later, Bob was released. He enrolled in Susquehanna University and pursued a psychology degree. He got his doctorate at the University of Kansas and began teaching. He is currently a professor of environmental psychology at the University of Arizona. When his daughter Carrah turned 19 he told her, his colleagues and his students, what he had done at Swarthmore. Macky Alston, a filmmaker, produced a documentary, The Killer Within, based on Bob's actions. However, Bob and school officials at Swarthmore say the documentary doesn't portray Bob or Francis properly.

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer - '55 School Killer: A Life Taken, Lived (published April 13, 2007)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maryland Park Junior High School, Maryland Park, Maryland

Friday, May 4, 1956

Billy Ray Prevatte was kicked out of the public schools of North Carolina for pulling a knife on a teacher. His troublesome ways didn't stay in North Carolina when he enrolled in Maryland Park Junior High School. It is unclear whether Billy Ray was expelled or suspended from school that pushed him over the edge. The fifteen-year-old walked the three miles to his home in Carmody Hills, got a .22-caliber rifle and brought it back to school, intending to kill the principal, Mr. Hrezo. However, Mr. Hrezo was substituting for Mr. Peters' gym class in the school's annex and not in his office when Billy Ray returned. So, Billy Ray settled on his favorite teacher, Mr. Cameron, shooting him in the head and chest. Mr. Cameron taught English. He also wounded the gym teacher, F. Daniel Wagner, and the shop teacher, Mr. Hicks, during the shooting. (Previous entry had identified the third teacher as Mr. Thomas, but that has been found to be incorrect.) Mr. Wagner was in the principal's office on the phone trying to find out why the bus was late in picking up the ball team when Billy Ray came in. Billy Ray served time in a juvenile facility until he was 21.

...and the list goes on.....................

pdf27
12-01-2008, 04:21 PM
Of the 190 people per million who are murdered in Canada, 60 die by bullet, 130 by some other means (knife, mostly, one imagines). That’s 31.5% by guns.
Of the 570 people per million murdered in the US, 340 die by bullet, 230 by some other means. That’s 59.6% by gun.
Good use of numbers, but you're missing something important here. Despite the widespread availability of firearms in the US, going by your numbers 230 per million are murdered by non-firearms means in the US, and only 130 per million by these means in Canada. This implies that the US as a whole is a more violent society for whatever reason, and that only very limited reliance can be placed on relative gun-crime statistics - as overall crime is clearly much higher, and the easy availability of firearms will cause some displacement from knives to guns.

herman2
12-02-2008, 07:44 AM
PDF, thanks for that input. Perhaps the problem may be congestion?. Perhaps the more people in a given society, the more they are prone to violence. Or perhaps the need to succeed or perhaps the drug culture or perhaps video games for youthsÖwhich leads to crime by gun. I don't think we will ever know the answer. I have the greatest respect for America and you know that from my past posts when I have always praised America over my own country. I find it some what humorous that my objection to the American constitution over the right to bear arm, stirred up hatred against my nationality. I meant no disrespect to America but created this thread for the purpose of discussing other opinions so we could learn cross-national views from America, Canada and Australia etc. Just because I may hold a different opinion does not mean Americans should tell me off. I like your response the best because it was meaningful. I appreciate responses like this which articulate your view. I donít respect the angle from the guy that thinks its cool to walk around with a handgun. In my opinion it is uncool. :army:

Rising Sun*
12-02-2008, 07:57 AM
I don’t respect the angle from the guy that thinks its cool to walk around with a handgun. In my opinion it is uncool. :army:

In fairness to him, if you lived in a society with such a high violent crime rate as parts of America and where criminals are more likely to be armed with handguns, or other guns, you might feel more comfortable with a handgun yourself.

I wouldn't rule out carrying one myself if I lived in some parts of America, even though I'm opposed to them here.

pdf27
12-02-2008, 12:30 PM
PDF, thanks for that input. Perhaps the problem may be congestion?. Perhaps the more people in a given society, the more they are prone to violence.
Unlikely - Japan for instance is much more crowded than the US, but has far lower rates of violent crime.

tankgeezer
12-02-2008, 01:50 PM
Quote by Herman2: " I meant no disrespect to America but created this thread for the purpose of discussing other opinions so we could learn cross-national views from America, Canada and Australia etc. Just because I may hold a different opinion does not mean Americans should tell me off. " You write the above, yet also this. Quote by Herman2 : "Ya Ya, ...as long as you Americans think with half a brain that concealed pistols are an ok thing to do, you will continue to have serious crime on your streets. Canada is one of the safest countries in the world because we think with a full brain and don't allow handguns for personel use. Constitution rights to bear arms is in my opinion a really backward and stupid law that went out with the abolition of slavery laws." I doubt anyone hates you, or Canada, so no need for melodrama.Unfortunately,these quotes show your posts as being less than genuine, perhaps even overtly provocative.

herman2
12-02-2008, 02:26 PM
Provocative? Moi?... ..Well I have been known to be a bit sleezy but provocative, I don't know about that...:)
Melodrama?,,well I still think a society that allows guns is stupid, and I think War is stupid, and I think people who enjoy carrying hand guns are stupid...but that is just my opinion, along with millions of others..but that does not mean I am disrespectful. It just means I don't think like many others and there is nothing wrong with that, despite your obsession with toting handguns to look cool. Whatever Ol tankgeezer...

tankgeezer
12-02-2008, 08:52 PM
Your own words convict you Herman, you speak of sharing opinions of other nations, but it is a bare excuse for you to be judgmental. Perhaps you feel yourself to be clever, but you are transparent, predictable, and dogmatic. (that means not clever)
Troll away as you wish, eventually, when others tire of your blether, they will ignore you as I am .

32Bravo
12-03-2008, 02:53 AM
I was looking at some travel prog. or other, the other day in which they reported that one can only own a home in Virgin,Utah, if one owns a gun. I thought it a rather novel idea. :)

Utah town requires all households to own gunNovember 5, 2000
Web posted at: 11:22 AM EST (1622 GMT)


VIRGIN, Utah (AP) -- This tiny southern Utah town has enacted an ordinance requiring a gun and ammunition in every home for residents' self-defense.

Most of Virgin's 350 residents already own firearms, so the initiative has lots of support, Mayor Jay Lee said.

Residents had expressed fear that their Second Amendment right to bear arms was under fire, so the town council modeled a similar measure passed by a Georgia city about 12 years ago.

The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious objectors and people who cannot afford to own a gun are exempt. :lol:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/05/mandatory.guns.ap/

Rising Sun*
12-03-2008, 04:52 AM
I was looking at some travel prog. or other, the other day in which they reported that one can only own a home in Virgin,Utah, if one owns a gun.

To be consistent, if there's a town called Gun in Utah I suppose homeowners would have to own a virgin.

Could be a bit awkward for polygamous Mormons, but I suppose they could always keep a virgin as a spare. :D

32Bravo
12-03-2008, 05:08 AM
but I suppose they could always keep a virgin as a spare. :D

Unless they are : The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious objectors and people who cannot afford to own a virgin are exempt. :lol:

...but then there's always martyrdom?

Rising Sun*
12-03-2008, 05:27 AM
Unless they are : The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious objectors and people who cannot afford to own a virgin are exempt. :lol:

I suppose one would have to demonstrate that one cannot afford to own a virgin by reference to the current market price?


Buy a virgin

Sac State grad appears on Howard Stern to promote the auction of her virginity
By: Paul Rios and Cody Kitaura
Posted: 9/17/08


A hurricane of media coverage is swirling around a Sacramento State graduate who is auctioning off her virginity.

The 22-year-old, who is using the pseudonym Natalie Dylan for safety reasons, announced the decision to sell her v-card on the Howard Stern radio show on Sept. 9.

"We live in a capitalist society," Dylan said on the show. "Why shouldn't I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity?"

Dennis Hof, owner of the Nevada brothel Moonlite Bunny Ranch, brought Dylan to Stern's attention. Dylan approached Hof with her sister, Avia, who worked at Hof's ranch for three weeks two years ago.

"I've seen a lot of crazy things, but this is very unique," Hof said in a phone interview.

With hundreds of offers already and bidding up to $275,000, Hof also claimed that a "rock star" and a "well-known male actor" contacted him and told him that they would outbid any other offers.

The amount of media attention did not surprise Hof, but Dylan, who could not be reached for comment, told CBS13 News that the coverage was a little overwhelming.

"I didn't expect it to take off this much," Dylan said. "I'm a big fan of anonymity and I did not expect any of this happen."

Hof said that Dylan had already passed a polygraph test verifying the authenticity of her chastity, but added that she is also willing to submit to a physical examination.

"I think I'm very intuitive and I can sense if a person is genuine or not, so I'm definitely going to be looking for that," Dylan told CBS13 News.

Dylan said she first got the idea to auction her virginity from a news story she read on the Internet about a Peruvian girl who attempted a similar cash out. The girl received an offer for $1.5 million from a Canadian man, but didn't go through with it. Dylan is pursuing the idea largely because of debt incurred when her father allegedly took out student loans in her name.

Dylan earned her bachelor's degree in women's studies from Sacramento State and said she plans to use the money to finance her graduate studies in marriage and family therapy.

Hof defended Dylan's choice to put herself out in the public and said that he wouldn't be surprised to see more of this in the future.

"Once you get past the moral issue, all this is is a girl trying to get through school," Hof said.

The auction will be conducted through and consummated at the Bunny Ranch, Hof said. Hof stands to receive 50 percent of the winning bid, but was uncertain how much the auction would pull in.

"I don't have any idea, but it's gonna be a bunch," Hof said. "Maybe you should get the school-get everybody to kick in (some money) and send the homecoming king down here."

I particularly liked the statement "Hof defended Dylan's choice to put herself out in the public...". She is definitely putting out in a big way. :D

I assume that the rejected $1.5m offer from a Canadian man was from Herman the Second. ;) :D

Anyway, it seems she's established that it costs at least US$3m to own a virgin for a night http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081121.wcovirgin24/BNStory/specialComment/America/ , which works out to about $1.1 bn a year, which would definitely require the owner to bear arms to protect his (or her) investment (this was a transparently clumsy way of pretending to stay on topic). Or maybe it ain't US$1.1bn a year, because after the first night she ain't gonna be a virgin.

32Bravo
12-03-2008, 06:16 AM
because after the first night she ain't gonna be a virgin.

That's why some opt for this:

If you become a martyr, God will give you 70 virgins

and argue for the right to bear arms. :)

Rising Sun*
12-03-2008, 07:32 AM
That's why some opt for this:

If you become a martyr, God will give you 70 virgins

and argue for the right to bear arms. :)

I thought it was 72 virgins, although some say it's 69 (which has its own inherent interest factor), but what's a virgin or two here and there? ;)

Given the way the prospective celestial virgins cover themselves up on earth with gloves and a net over the eye slit for the truly devout, surely the best you could hope for would be a Virgin of the Month centrefold with a bare right arm upholding the right to bare right arms? :D

herman2
12-03-2008, 07:40 AM
An old article, but nonetheless, if the right to bear arms is such a great idea then why are so so many cities suing the gun manufacturers?....hmmmm

By ROBERT HANLEY
Jersey City today became the 33rd governmental entity in the country since 1998 to sue the gun industry, charging that negligent sales practices have helped create a black market in weapons for criminals.

As he announced the lawsuit on the front steps of City Hall, Mayor Glenn D. Cunningham, a former Jersey City police captain, spoke of the ''devastating impact'' illegal handguns in the hands of drug dealers, gangsters and children have had on the quality of life in the city. In the coming court fight, he said, the city will be as persistent as an unmerciful gunman who keeps firing a weapon during a crime.

''We're going to keep shooting until we hit the gun manufacturers where it hurts,'' Mayor Cunningham said.

In 1996 and 1997, the lawsuit says, handguns were involved in a ''significant percentage'' of the 42 murders, 2,430 robberies and 2,325 aggravated assaults in Jersey City. The suit does not cite more current gun-related crimes.

32Bravo
12-03-2008, 07:46 AM
I thought it was 72 virgins, although some say it's 69 (which has its own inherent interest factor), but what's a virgin or two here and there? ;)

Given the way the prospective celestial virgins cover themselves up on earth with gloves and a net over the eye slit for the truly devout, surely the best you could hope for would be a Virgin of the Month centrefold with a bare right arm upholding the right to bare right arms? :D

Yes, there are many of them in and around London and the Home Counties.

Most tend to wear the scarf, but don't conceal the face, a short, but long-sleeved, mini-dress (as they don't have the right to bare arms) with tight leggings to cover the legs. I must confess (being a true RC) that I find it all rather alluring - I'm sure it's touch of the forbidden-fruit effect, added to the considereation that they are meant to be virgins and some of them are smashers.

Quite seperately. I like your Wilfried Owen signature. A bit of a paradox there.
I'm trying to remember who it was advised him on the title 'Anrthem for Dommed Youth'? It might have been Sassoon?

Rising Sun*
12-03-2008, 08:12 AM
An old article, but nonetheless, if the right to bear arms is such a great idea then why are so so many cities suing the gun manufacturers?....hmmmm

Given that your quote seems to be about a decade old:
Which cities?
When?
With what result?

Why wouldn't a city jump on a litigation bandwagon to sue a corporation outside its borders (and thus free of political risk) to look like it's doing something (which like most politicians' law and order ideas is largely or completely meaningless and ineffective in practice but it sounds good to unthinking electors) about crime, with the added bonus of possibly getting some money under the American legal system which makes such claims less risky than in Britain or Australia, where the loser has to pay the winner's legal costs?



By ROBERT HANLEY
Jersey City today became the 33rd governmental entity in the country since 1998 to sue the gun industry, charging that negligent sales practices have helped create a black market in weapons for criminals.

How does one sue 'the gun industry'? It's not an entity capable of being a defendant.



As he announced the lawsuit on the front steps of City Hall, Mayor Glenn D. Cunningham, a former Jersey City police captain, spoke of the ''devastating impact'' illegal handguns in the hands of drug dealers, gangsters and children have had on the quality of life in the city. In the coming court fight, he said, the city will be as persistent as an unmerciful gunman who keeps firing a weapon during a crime.

''We're going to keep shooting until we hit the gun manufacturers where it hurts,'' Mayor Cunningham said.

Ignoring the cute language by the grandstanding mayor, how do gun manufacturers become liable for illegal handguns?

Particularly as the claim is based on "negligent sales practices have helped create a black market in weapons for criminals"

Does the mayor have evidence that, say, Smith & Wesson is flogging guns illegally out the back door of its factory? If not, then why is the manufacturer responsible for guns becoming 'illegal'? Surely that is the retailer's responsibility or that of others in the subsequent chain of possession?

As for 'negligent sales practices', who is responsible for regulating gun sales? Retailers or government? If retailers, then government has no complaint about what they do as it's up to them. If government, then why didn't the government regulate them properly to enforce the sales laws?



In 1996 and 1997, the lawsuit says, handguns were involved in a ''significant percentage'' of the 42 murders, 2,430 robberies and 2,325 aggravated assaults in Jersey City. The suit does not cite more current gun-related crimes.

So? How many were illegal handguns, which is what was getting the mayor all tight in the gusset?

And, how many were manufactured by American makers, as distinct from foreign makers who are not subject to American courts' jurisdiction?

Rising Sun*
12-03-2008, 08:26 AM
Quite seperately. I like your Wilfried Owen signature. A bit of a paradox there.

I'm trying to remember who it was advised him on the title 'Anrthem for Dommed Youth'? It might have been Sassoon?

I don't know.

I've never really got into reading about poets and writers instead of just reading what they wrote, but inevitably one picks up bits and pieces about them.

I think that Owen spent some time in a rehabilitation hospital with Sassoon after Owen's early and devastating introduction to the battlefield, where Siegfried encouraged and advised him on his poetry. I have a vague recollection that Robert Graves might have been there, too, or maybe that was later. Or never.

My signature changed tonight from a quote from Owen's S.I.W. and will change periodically to quote Owen and others, not necessarily poets and not necessarily Allies, depending upon how drunk I am and what I can remember, which rather narrows the field.

This may be a fraught process as I was convinced that Kenneth Slessor wrote a poem entitled 'Seven Bells' which had a moving burial scene on a North African beach during WWII. Some internet research shows that I was a couple of bells out and the scene I recalled doesn't seem to be in his poems.

herman2
12-03-2008, 09:50 AM
Given that your quote seems to be about a decade old:
Which cities?
When?
With what result?

Why wouldn't a city jump on a litigation bandwagon to sue a corporation outside its borders (and thus free of political risk) to look like it's doing something (which like most politicians' law and order ideas is largely or completely meaningless and ineffective in practice but it sounds good to unthinking electors) about crime, with the added bonus of possibly getting some money under the American legal system which makes such claims less risky than in Britain or Australia, where the loser has to pay the winner's legal costs?



How does one sue 'the gun industry'? It's not an entity capable of being a defendant.



Ignoring the cute language by the grandstanding mayor, how do gun manufacturers become liable for illegal handguns?

Particularly as the claim is based on "negligent sales practices have helped create a black market in weapons for criminals"

Does the mayor have evidence that, say, Smith & Wesson is flogging guns illegally out the back door of its factory? If not, then why is the manufacturer responsible for guns becoming 'illegal'? Surely that is the retailer's responsibility or that of others in the subsequent chain of possession?

As for 'negligent sales practices', who is responsible for regulating gun sales? Retailers or government? If retailers, then government has no complaint about what they do as it's up to them. If government, then why didn't the government regulate them properly to enforce the sales laws?



So? How many were illegal handguns, which is what was getting the mayor all tight in the gusset?

And, how many were manufactured by American makers, as distinct from foreign makers who are not subject to American courts' jurisdiction?

Well, when I complete my thesis for the Nobel Peace Prize, I will make sure I sight your questions of intrigue within the essay. Your questions go beyond a normal response. Perhaps I should quote the address and telephone number of the lawyer involved with the law suit and add the court hearing dates with middle name, first name and surname of all the lawyers involved?. Give me a break.The issue of cities suing gun manufactures has been an ongoing issue with may countries and is not new. The point is that the same government which allows the freedom to bear arms, is the same government which goes to alternative means to control gun crime by frivulous law suits.I agree the law suits are silly but I read about them in Toronto as much as elsewhere in the States. Instead of tackling the root of the gun problem, the government goes behind a bush and sues the gun manufacturers. I mean, if a drunk driver kills someone, does the law go after the beer maker?. i know the server may be liable but to go after the manufacturer is absurd indeed.:army:

32Bravo
12-03-2008, 11:02 AM
I don't know.

I've never really got into reading about poets and writers instead of just reading what they wrote, but inevitably one picks up bits and pieces about them.

I think that Owen spent some time in a rehabilitation hospital with Sassoon after Owen's early and devastating introduction to the battlefield, where Siegfried encouraged and advised him on his poetry. I have a vague recollection that Robert Graves might have been there, too, or maybe that was later. Or never.

My signature changed tonight from a quote from Owen's S.I.W. and will change periodically to quote Owen and others, not necessarily poets and not necessarily Allies, depending upon how drunk I am and what I can remember, which rather narrows the field.

This may be a fraught process as I was convinced that Kenneth Slessor wrote a poem entitled 'Seven Bells' which had a moving burial scene on a North African beach during WWII. Some internet research shows that I was a couple of bells out and the scene I recalled doesn't seem to be in his poems.


I've responded to this on the WW1 Books thread.

Rising Sun*
12-04-2008, 03:45 AM
This may be a fraught process as I was convinced that Kenneth Slessor wrote a poem entitled 'Seven Bells' which had a moving burial scene on a North African beach during WWII. Some internet research shows that I was a couple of bells out and the scene I recalled doesn't seem to be in his poems.

I am pleased to report that I had the right poem (Beach Burial) in mind; the wrong title (Five - not seven - Bells); and that Google knows less than I do on this subject.



Beach Burial

Softly and humbly to the Gulf of Arabs
The convoys of dead sailors come;
At night they sway and wander in the waters far under,
But morning rolls them in the foam.

Between the sob and clubbing of gunfire
Someone, it seems, has time for this,
To pluck them from the shallows and bury them in burrows
And tread the sand upon their nakedness;

And each cross, the driven stake of tidewood,
Bears the last signature of men,
Written with such perplexity, with such bewildered pity,
The words choke as they begin -

"Unknown seaman" - the ghostly pencil
Wavers and fades, the purple drips,
The breath of wet season has washed their inscriptions
As blue as drowned men's lips,

Dead seamen, gone in search of the same landfall,
Whether as ememies they fought,
Or fought with us, or neither; the sand joins them together,
Enlisted on the other front.

Rising Sun*
12-04-2008, 04:41 AM
Well, when I complete my thesis for the Nobel Peace Prize, I will make sure I sight your questions of intrigue within the essay. Your questions go beyond a normal response. Perhaps I should quote the address and telephone number of the lawyer involved with the law suit and add the court hearing dates with middle name, first name and surname of all the lawyers involved?. Give me a break.The issue of cities suing gun manufactures has been an ongoing issue with may countries and is not new.

Then, rather than responding with empty sarcasm to my request for evidence to support your claims, you should be able to provide abundant evidence of it.



The point is that the same government which allows the freedom to bear arms, is the same government which goes to alternative means to control gun crime by frivulous law suits.

The US Constitution gives the right to bear arms, not the US Government.

The US Government is subject to the Constitution, not the source of it, as the US Supreme Court had repeatedly shown.

City laws as in your quoted case, along with county and state laws, are not made or administered by the US Federal Government.

The Federal Government is not responsible for, nor a joint plaintiff with, litigants such as the city you mentioned in your quoted case.

As for being a frivolous suit, you presented such suits as being serious evidence against the right to bear arms: "if the right to bear arms is such a great idea then why are so so many cities suing the gun manufacturers?"

herman2
12-04-2008, 09:45 AM
Why thank you for that consice and well articulated rebutel.I look forward to your many other time consuming and long phrased responses to my other comments which I am sure you will take the time to dwell into being that your efforts are put to good use. Thanks RS. I am researching the feedback you provided for my essay.

Rising Sun*
12-04-2008, 01:34 PM
Why thank you for that consice and well articulated rebutel.I look forward to your many other time consuming and long phrased responses to my other comments which I am sure you will take the time to dwell into being that your efforts are put to good use. Thanks RS. I am researching the feedback you provided for my essay.

Again, empty sarcasm instead of evidence to back up your assertions, which suggests there isn't any evidence to back them up. Or that you lack the ability to find it.

herman2
12-04-2008, 02:29 PM
Again, empty sarcasm instead of evidence to back up your assertions, which suggests there isn't any evidence to back them up. Or that you lack the ability to find it.

isn't it a bit late for you to still be up?.Usually your never on in the afternoon (my time)...anyways, there not my views RS. I was merely phrasing different angles of objection to the right to bear arms since someone said before that I offer only opinion without quoting sources, so when I quote a source I am merely trying to input some objective different viewes towards an issue. Soory if I was sarcastic towards you, but i'm sure your thick Australian skin can handle my wimpy attempts to fend off your smart responses:). Do you yourself own any guns?In Canada it is so difficult. i once had a shotgun for traget practise then they came up with this stupid gun registry law and to make a long story short, i donated it to the police for scrap. I was wondering if Austrailia has easy gun laws like USA or not? I would imagine that guns are more useful for shooting off wallabee's so perhaps many own a gun down under?:)

colonel hogan
01-29-2009, 02:48 PM
look we as americans have the right to bear arms as the constitution says. but crap happens. the police do there best to stop problems. i love guns but id have to wait 3 days before i got the bolt when i buy a gun to stop me from doing something,not that i would(:(:(:

herman2
02-17-2009, 03:06 PM
I like this story...from Toronto Star Newspaper....today!

A disturbing break-in at the home of a Scarborough gun collector this month highlights the need for a national handgun ban. Thanks to this individual's desire to own deadly weapons, criminals have now obtained 12 firearms, including 10 handguns.

All the weapons were legally registered by a gun club member and stored in a locked cabinet. But those precautions offer little comfort to any potential victims.

A handgun enthusiast has provided a convenient arsenal for criminals to tap into. City data show about one-third of the illegal guns seized by police are from domestic sources. The rest are smuggled from the U.S., as usual.

If collectors were barred from possessing handguns, thieves would have one less source of supply. Unlike a hunting rifle or shotgun, a handgun has no practical use except to kill a human being.

Easily concealed pistols are the criminal element's weapon of choice. And make no mistake: Gang members, drug dealers and other thugs will take extreme measures to obtain a pistol.

These guns should be denied to all except police, the military and a few top competitive shooters. Other handgun owners should be required to surrender them under a nationwide buy-back program. Depriving criminals of their supply matters more to society than indulging hobbyists.

Dixie Devil
02-17-2009, 03:19 PM
So the fault for criminals breaking in and stealing legal owned firearms is the fault of the firearms, not the fault of the criminals?

But maybe handguns should be banned since it is common knowledge that there was never a murder before the invention of firearms....

herman2
02-17-2009, 03:27 PM
LOL,,,ya eh?..I like the last comment. It makes sense....My dad always said they should ban glass cause people cut themselves with it, and ban butterknives cause they stab people...I;) see your point!

Dixie Devil
02-17-2009, 03:46 PM
Always glad to throw in some sarcasm. It always gets me started when people blame crime on objects rather than blaming crime on the criminals.

No criminals + Firearms = No crime

Criminals + No firearms = Crime

Cuts
02-17-2009, 04:25 PM
I like this story...from Toronto Star Newspaper....today!

A disturbing break-in at the home of a Scarborough gun collector this month highlights the need for a national handgun ban. Thanks to this individual's desire to own deadly weapons, criminals have now obtained 12 firearms, including 10 handguns.

All the weapons were legally registered by a gun club member and stored in a locked cabinet. But those precautions offer little comfort to any potential victims.

A handgun enthusiast has provided a convenient arsenal for criminals to tap into. City data show about one-third of the illegal guns seized by police are from domestic sources. The rest are smuggled from the U.S., as usual.

If collectors were barred from possessing handguns, thieves would have one less source of supply. Unlike a hunting rifle or shotgun, a handgun has no practical use except to kill a human being.

Easily concealed pistols are the criminal element's weapon of choice. And make no mistake: Gang members, drug dealers and other thugs will take extreme measures to obtain a pistol.

These guns should be denied to all except police, the military and a few top competitive shooters. Other handgun owners should be required to surrender them under a nationwide buy-back program. Depriving criminals of their supply matters more to society than indulging hobbyists.

You've been drinking haven't you ?

herman2
03-24-2009, 11:17 AM
Maybe you can have gun shows in your city, but not mine!
We not only have no right to bear arms, we can’t even see a gun on city property.
Right or wrong, that’s the law and I love it!

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/607362
Mar 24, 2009
The Toronto Sportsmen's Show is moving from Exhibition Place to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre because of a city decision to ban the sale and display of firearms at the event.
A show organizer confirmed today the decision is related to the city's policy.
"We looked at all opportunities and our options for future growth. We made a decision to move to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre,'' said Ray Sriubiskis, vice-president of the Canadian National Sportsmen's Shows, which runs the event.
The event featured 400 companies in 2008 that attracted almost 122,000 visitors, the show's website states.
Sriubiskis said the city's new policy forbidding firearms at the show "played a role'' in that decision. The contract with the Convention Centre, a provincially owned facility, was signed on Monday, Sriubiskis said.
"It's a great facility with regards to accessibility for out-of-town travellers. The TTC, GO, Union Station, are all right there,'' he added.
Discussions with alternate facilities have been going on for "some time,'' he said.
As the Star first reported last week, the future of the popular show as a tenant at Exhibition Place was in jeopardy after the city quietly decided last fall to ban the sale and display of firearms at the show.
Deputy mayor and Exhibition Place chair Joe Pantalone said last week the decision had been shared with Sportsmen's Show organizers at that time.
But Sriubiskis last week denied any knowledge of the city's move.
The city took the steps to conform with Mayor David Miller's ban on the promotion of firearms on city property.
A Scarborough rifle club at a city community centre, and a gun club at Union Station were evicted last year as a result of Miller's ban

Saxon
04-06-2009, 03:56 PM
UNDERSTANDING GUN CONTROL

These are the facts:
In 1994 the long troubled culture in Rwanda broke into wide scale civil unrest. Roving bands of Hutu and Tutsi reigned their murderous terror upon one another. At least half a million people were murdered, yet barely a shot was fired. The carnage was almost entirely carried out with machetes, clubs and axes.

The following report is unsubstantiated:
In the aftermath of this social tragedy, the Rwanda government appointed a committee to investigate the causes and to recommend preventative measures, to keep this from occurring again. Several Americans were invited to sit on the committee, including a Liberal Democrat politician, an Ivy League professor and a TV reporter from a major network.
The committee quickly ruled out the possibility that the culture was faulty, they specifically dismissed the following causes:

• Hatred, anger, and an inability to forgive
• Lack of childhood discipline and lack of self control
• Too much exposure to American TV
• Years of failed social policies
• Eroded values leaving a poor moral social base
• Erroneous moral education
• Mental instability
• Ethnic and religious tensions
• Disregard for the Ten Commandments and no fear of God

They concluded instead that a proliferation of weapons, and easy access to these weapons was the problem.

The committee recommended the institution of the following preventative measures:

• License should be required to own a machete, club or axe.
• Five day waiting period and background check before purchasing a machete, club or axe.
• All double bladed ax heads should be outlawed completely.
• All knives or machetes with blades in excess of 12 inches should be outlawed.
• Anyone carrying a concealed knife or hand ax should be assumed to be a criminal.
• Knife shows and other market place exhibitions of axes, clubs and machetes should be highly regulated by the government.
• If a hand ax is transported in a vehicle, the ax head should be separated from the handle and placed in the glove compartment.
• Garden tool manufactures should be held liable for many of the massacres which took place.

The National Rwanda Association attempted to oppose the committees point of view, issuing statements:

• It is people who kill people, not machetes.
• These laws take weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving them unable to defend themselves; but the criminals just ignore the laws.

The NRA also voiced concerns over the recent interpretations of their rights, saying “At the very least, we should have the right to wear short sleeved shirts”; an apparent interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

But the media only aired the committees point of view, so the population at large failed to understand.

---

Panzerknacker
05-18-2009, 10:00 PM
A good clip that I ve uploaded just for this topic.;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xcTpIoNUSE

nkkie123
05-22-2009, 01:16 AM
for this generations, even civilians carry guns..we can never tell who's the one who carries it and who's not..http://storeyourpicture.com/images/signature_imageHost.jpg

mike M.
05-24-2009, 12:30 PM
Here are a couple videos of NY Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy ( D) Talking about her bill that wants to ban weapons. She wants to ban Barrel Shrouds..she does not even know what it is. Then the second video she thinks the 50 cal has Heat seeking bullets. LOL And she is trying to make decisions. LOL
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m1d24-Its-The-Carolyn-McCarthy-Show

Panzerknacker
05-24-2009, 09:19 PM
Thanks for the videos Mike, I think that lady saw too much "terminator" :shock:.


for this generations, even civilians carry guns..we can never tell who's the one who carries it and who's not..

I guess the idea is that law abbiding citizens could carry weapons to defend themselves of non law-abbidding-gun-carring criminals, we are in favour of that of course.

Unfortunately in most countries of the world the picture is completely different, the law abbiding citizen had been degraded to the level of an undesarmed hand tied sheep by his beloved politicians.

mike M.
05-24-2009, 10:11 PM
Thanks for the videos Mike, I think that lady saw too much "terminator" :shock:.

Yes..It's amazing that politicians like this with NO KNOWLEDGE of firearms are trying to make laws relating to firearms. I just wanna slap this bitch.

herman2
05-26-2009, 09:08 AM
Yes..It's amazing that politicians like this with NO KNOWLEDGE of firearms are trying to make laws relating to firearms. I just wanna slap this bitch.

Well, the Minister of Health does not need to be a Doctor to qualify as Minister of Health. Laws which restrict the use of firearms is in the best interest of society which is what a politician strives to do.

Rising Sun*
05-26-2009, 10:01 AM
Well, the Minister of Health does not need to be a Doctor to qualify as Minister of Health.

That's one of the great virtues of our democratic system. Any idiot, or crook, can be elected to run a department in an area about which they have no knowledge. Which usually is the case in most ministries in most governments here.

A few decades ago our major redneck and wholly corrupt state government had a lawyer as the minister for whatever dealt with survey and lands while the minister for justice was a surveyor. Admittedly, the chief of state police and various other people ended up covered in shit and in prison, but it was fun while it lasted.


Laws which restrict the use of firearms is in the best interest of society which is what a politician strives to do.

Politicians strive to get elected. When it comes down to what really matters to them, few of them give a shit about anything but gaining power and keeping it. And that depends upon who funds their campaigns. Few of them would lose power on a point of principle, not least because most of them have no principles beyond gaining and keeping power.

I'll leave the US gun control situation alone and illustrate my point by reference to a serious issue here, being street violence and especially knife and other blade attacks.

Most of the knife / blade attacks are related to certain ethnic groups. Most of those ethnic groups have a few leaders who are supporters of the current state governments, through various forms of electoral corruption. That corruption is by the Anglo and Euro politicians and their political parties which exploit the other ethnic groups.

So, although every man and his dog here knows who the ethnic groups are which are the main offenders in knife / blade attacks, they won't be targeted by a government which depends upon some of the political and corrupt elements within those ethnic groups to manipulate the supposedly pure democratic process which all major political parties happily corrupt to gain power.

So, instead of (a) increasing police numbers to a realistic level and (b) actually using them as police rather than primarily as uniformed social workers and revenue raising traffic cops and (c) getting stuck into indentifiable problem ethnic and gang groups as well as people at well known problem places and (d) making carrying any blade beyond a minor pocket knife a shitload of trouble offence, our politicians just let these turds run wild.

Meanwhile our politicians express great sadness when yet another innocent is knifed by some worthless **** who deserves Rule 303. (from being shot dead with a .303 SMLE), while carefully avoiding doing anything to stop it happening again.

It's rare that I begin to agree with anything published in this rag but, even allowing for the understandable rage of the bereaved parents, I think they may be on the right track. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25538231-2862,00.html

navyson
05-26-2009, 10:04 AM
Well, the Minister of Health does not need to be a Doctor to qualify as Minister of Health. Laws which restrict the use of firearms is in the best interest of society which is what a politician strives to do.
Yes Herman, but it's in the best interests of society not to vote in moronic people like the one mike m is talking about. At least one should become somewhat informed on something you're going to propose legislation on.

Rising Sun*
05-26-2009, 10:08 AM
At least one should become somewhat informed on something you're going to propose legislation on.

I don't see why. ;)

It's never been a requirement in our glorious two party democratic system that a politician should understand anything he or she votes on, as long as they toe the party line. Which has more to with where allegiances lie and donations come from than anyone being informed about anything, or much caring. :evil:

navyson
05-26-2009, 10:23 AM
I don't see why. ;)

It's never been a requirement in our glorious two party democratic system that a politician should understand anything he or she votes on, as long as they toe the party line. Which has more to with where allegiances lie and donations come from than anyone being informed about anything, or much caring. :evil:
Yes, ever since the early 90's, I've wished for a relevant third party. The government seems to be getting too inflexible. There needs to be a lot more bi-partisanship to get things done. Maybe with a third party there would be more co-operation?

Rising Sun*
05-26-2009, 10:31 AM
Yes, ever since the early 90's, I've wished for a relevant third party. The government seems to be getting too inflexible. There needs to be a lot more bi-partisanship to get things done. Maybe with a third party there would be more co-operation?

We've had various third parties here, of small but crucial numbers and usually in the upper (= our and your Senate federally) house which decides the ultimate fate of bills.

Sometimes they stand true to their principles, but on major issues they have too often sold out in one way or another which has disappointed or even alienated their supporters. Because, in the end, they're all ****ing politicians who would sell their mother for political advantage on an issue of sufficient importance to them.

And I might say I offer my cynical opinion on politicians after spending a couple of decades watching them come through the junior ranks of both major parties and achieving anything up to ministerial status. They all started out as corrupt ****s and none of them has changed, apart from having even less shame and fewer principles, and that was coming off a low base. And the women are often worse than the men, despite the feminist dogma that when women run the world all will be sweetness and light. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Panzerknacker
05-26-2009, 05:53 PM
In here there are almost 10 political parties, but the quality of those is still very low. :rolleyes:

herman2
06-08-2009, 09:30 AM
I find it very comprimising that State laws have different views of federal laws when it comes to the right to bear arms....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-06-07-court-guns_N.htm
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — One year after the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep handguns, the justices have before them a new test of that right.
The National Rifle Association has appealed a ruling from a U.S. appeals court in Chicago that said the right to bear arms cannot be invoked by gun owners challenging state and local firearm regulations. It said the high court's groundbreaking decision last term in a case from Washington, D.C., allows the Second Amendment to cover only regulations by the federal government — at least until the high court weighs in again.
If the justices decide to take up the appeal, it would probably be heard next fall by a bench that could include Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who is now on a federal appeals court in New York. She was part of a court panel in January that similarly held that the 2008 gun decision did not apply to state regulations.
A U.S. appeals court in San Francisco, however, ruled this year that the Second Amendment indeed covers state gun restrictions.
"Because of the split in opinions (on the breadth of the 2008 ruling), it seems likely that the court would take it," says Daniel Vice, a lawyer with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He says a ruling could affect gun laws nationwide.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Ronald Reagan | National Rifle Association | Antonin Scalia | Sonia Sotomayor | Gun Owners of America | Frank H. Easterbrook
The June 2008 decision, decided by a 5-4 vote, said for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep handguns at home for self-protection. A 1939 high court decision had led lower courts and many legal analysts to believe the Second Amendment covered firearm rights only for state militias such as National Guard units.
The new decision in National Rifle Association v. Chicago by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago, written by conservative Ronald Reagan appointee Frank Easterbrook, echoes the closely scrutinized decision from a three-judge panel of the U.S. appeals court for the 2nd Circuit that included Sotomayor.
She joined an opinion that rejected a challenge to a New York ban on certain weapons used in martial arts and emphasized that the high court has never specifically ruled that the Second Amendment can be applied to state regulations. That 2nd Circuit decision, Maloney v. Cuomo, provoked some gun rights groups to protest Sotomayor's nomination. The Virginia-based Gun Owners of America called her "an anti-gun radical."
Last Tuesday's decision by the 7th Circuit undercuts criticism that the Sotomayor panel decision was extreme. As Easterbrook wrote, specifically agreeing with the 2nd Circuit, the Supreme Court said in the 2008 case involving a District of Columbia handgun ban that it was not deciding whether the Second Amendment covered state or local regulations.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored the high court decision, noted that the case arose from the federal enclave of Washington, D.C., and that past cases said the Second Amendment covers only the federal government. With a new case from a state or municipality, the court could extend the reach of the Second Amendment.
Until then, Easterbrook wrote in the case involving handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, an appeals court may not "strike off on its own." He said that would undermine the uniformity of the nation's laws.
The NRA's Stephen Halbrook, representing Chicago and Oak Park residents who want to keep handguns at home, urged the justices to take up the 7th Circuit case to resolve the reach of last term's ruling.
Halbrook said the right to guns "allows one to protect life itself."

32Bravo
12-22-2009, 12:30 PM
"You don't take a gun to a snowball fight!"....unbievable!

muscogeemike
02-01-2011, 08:54 PM
"Among other evils that being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised." Niccolo Machiavelli

muscogeemike
03-28-2011, 08:39 PM
More: An AZ woman shot a mugger 6 times and was put on trial. When the prosecutor asked her why she shot the guy 6 times she said “Because when I pulled the trigger the seventh time it only went click”.

Rising Sun*
03-29-2011, 06:48 AM
More on expending all your ammunition.

After police shot a cop killer dead in Florida, hitting him with 68 of 110 rounds fired at him, the sheriff was asked by reporters why the man was shot 68 times. The sheriff replied "That's all the bullets we had or we would have shot him more." http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp

pdf27
03-29-2011, 11:47 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Armbears-cover.jpg

tankgeezer
03-29-2011, 12:57 PM
Dont forget the Navy,,,,

skorzeny57
03-29-2011, 01:44 PM
OK, the right to bear arms... But what about the right to bear bear?

muscogeemike
03-31-2011, 08:41 PM
A few years ago in Los Angeles, CA, a bunch of cops, armed with 9 mm handguns and shotguns, had a great deal of trouble stopping two bank robbers wearing body armor.

The was much turmoil and the Police Dept. wanted to put M-16’s in every patrol car.

Since in every shoot-out most rounds do not hit their intended target (like combat), giving street cops full auto, high velocity, weapons to use in a highly populated city, seemed to me to be a bad idea.

I don’t remember what the final determination was but maybe instead of M-16’s the cops could have used some better marksmanship training and non auto high powered rifles.

Rising Sun*
04-01-2011, 04:10 AM
A few years ago in Los Angeles, CA, a bunch of cops, armed with 9 mm handguns and shotguns, had a great deal of trouble stopping two bank robbers wearing body armor.

Which is why civilians can't legally buy body armour here.

We have gun control laws, but it's a lot easier to buy a gun than to buy body armour legally.

Possessing body armour risks up to two years of inactivity as an involuntary guest in one of Her Majesty's recreation centres.

Nickdfresh
04-01-2011, 06:50 AM
A few years ago in Los Angeles, CA, a bunch of cops, armed with 9 mm handguns and shotguns, had a great deal of trouble stopping two bank robbers wearing body armor.

The was much turmoil and the Police Dept. wanted to put M-16ís in every patrol car.

Since in every shoot-out most rounds do not hit their intended target (like combat), giving street cops full auto, high velocity, weapons to use in a highly populated city, seemed to me to be a bad idea.

I donít remember what the final determination was but maybe instead of M-16ís the cops could have used some better marksmanship training and non auto high powered rifles.

I believe that only some, specially trained LAPD cops (patrol commanders, etc.) carry M-16s and other assault rifles. The NYPD also have specially trained response teams armed with rifles, but I forget what they're called...

muscogeemike
04-01-2011, 09:36 AM
Which is why civilians can't legally buy body armour here.

We have gun control laws, but it's a lot easier to buy a gun than to buy body armour legally.

Possessing body armour risks up to two years of inactivity as an involuntary guest in one of Her Majesty's recreation centres.

I see (besides our constitutional right) reasons to keep and bear arms - but it is hard for me to justify private citizens owning body armor.

Rising Sun*
04-01-2011, 10:04 AM
I see (besides our constitutional right) reasons to keep and bear arms - but it is hard for me to justify private citizens owning body armor.

That illustrates the difficulty some of us outside America have with the notion of an unlimited right to bear arms.

If you're against body armour because it puts law enforcement officers at greater risk in protecting the community, why not be against weapons which outgun law enforcement officers which puts law enforcement officers at greater risk in protecting the community?

I had my first real gun, a .22 , as a fairly young child and a few other guns later, but they were all for game shooting. It never occurred to me or anyone else that our guns were for any other purpose.

We didn't and don't have any notion of a right to bear arms for a militia or related purposes which underpins the American consitutional right to bear arms, which in turn flows from America's revolutionary history.

If there is a right to bear arms to protect oneself, why shouldn't there be a right to purchase body armour to protect oneself from the same threats?

muscogeemike
04-01-2011, 11:45 AM
I didn’t actually say I was against owning body armor, I said I found it hard to justify. Just as I find it hard to justify unlimited owning of true assault weapons and large capacity magazines in most weapons.

We don’t have an “unlimited right to bear arms” in the US. The private citizen has not been able to own (without license) an automatic weapon for many years, there are many areas and cities where handguns are banned and even more where owning firearms is limited and/or licensed. There are restrictions everywhere when purchasing firearms (especially handguns) and most ammunition.

Yes there are “loop holes”, such as gun shows, but I think that the time of these activities (as we currently know them ) is limited. A few years ago, prior to some recent Supreme Court decisions, I would have said that time is limited for us to own handguns as well.

There is still a strong anti gun movement here. Recently our Secretary of State enabled a ban of importation of 60-70 year old M-1 Garand rifles on the grounds that they were “assault rifles”.

It is truly asinine that a returning combat veteran cannot buy a handgun in most states if he is under 21 years of age (they can’t drink alcohol or smoke either).

Body armor isn’t a complete protection - as thousands of war casualties going back decades show. We wore it in Viet Nam and occasionally it is effective. It can give one a false sense of security and it is passive. I suppose you could take the armor off and beat an adversary with it - but personally if the situation was that extreme I would prefer a firearm.

As to protecting Law Enforcement officers, I agree, to a point. The situation here is not new and officers should know what they are getting into when they take the job. After all they (like Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen) take their chances. I’m certainly not downplaying a cops situation, their job is extremely tough and I wouldn’t want to attempt it, but they don’t have to do it.

There are over 800,000 full time Law Enforcement Officers in the US (local and Federal). Since 2000 the average is about 50 officers a year killed by firearms. Few, if any, were killed by people who legally owned their firearms. That averages out to one in 16,000. More are killed and injured in auto accidents than by firearms.

Locally a City Police Officer was recently killed by a cow while directing traffic (and not in the country-in a city of over 100,000)! Just like owning firearms there are limits to any protections.

Do we “protect” the Police Officers by not allowing the private citizen to protect themselves? We elect people to decide these things for us, unfortunately they, more often that not, advocate their responsibilities to their desire to be re-elected.

skorzeny57
04-01-2011, 01:39 PM
Which is why civilians can't legally buy body armour here. We have gun control laws, but it's a lot easier to buy a gun than to buy body armour legally. Possessing body armour risks up to two years of inactivity as an involuntary guest in one of Her Majesty's recreation centres.

I didn't know that the purchase and the possession of body armour is illegal in Australia. Here in Italy, despite the many limitations we have concerning the world of weapons, we haven't any limitations about them. I own three body armour fragmentation protective vests. The first (left in the picture) is original from Vietnam era. The second is German from 1988 (right in the picture). The third is from US Ground Troops, woodland camo, from 1981.
Anyway, concerning the weapons there are many incomprehensible aspects related to the laws that control the purchase and the possession of weapons in different Countries.
For example, here in Italy the simple the detention of a sound suppressor is considered highly illegal, to the point that they kick you in jail and they throw the key in a river... In France, neighbouring Country and Member of the European Community as well as Italy, the Authorities encourage and promote the use of sound suppressors, by hunters and shooters. Infact, in France, you can easily buy a sound suppressor in every Armoury and Gunshop. Any comments?

tankgeezer
04-01-2011, 02:25 PM
There was a time in the U.S. (maybe other countries as well)when There was the danger of stray bullets from drive by shootings. I have done some looking but cant retrieve specifics, but some body armor company(s) were producing a line of children's outerwear with Kevlar panels built into them to protect the kids from stray rounds. They were expensive, but parents did buy the jackets, coats etc. I dont know if these items are yet offered, but when soft armor came to the market all sorts of folks wanted to buy it. Those who did the bank drop after closing, or worked in a business that had a higher than average incidence of robbery.Jewelry stores, pawn shops, liquor stores etc. Even those who just lived in places that were dodgy, and unsafe. I wore a Point blank vest for years at my gun shop, and sold them to military people, some post carriers, and a few bus drivers, even a crossing guard. (body armor can lessen the trauma of being struck by a car ) If I would sell a person a firearm, I would generally sell them a vest if they wanted one. Dont know about now, but at the time, there was no regulation prohibiting the practice.

muscogeemike
04-01-2011, 03:49 PM
There was a time in the U.S. (maybe other countries as well)when There was the danger of stray bullets from drive by shootings. I have done some looking but cant retrieve specifics, but some body armor company(s) were producing a line of children's outerwear with Kevlar panels built into them to protect the kids from stray rounds. They were expensive, but parents did buy the jackets, coats etc. I dont know if these items are yet offered, but when soft armor came to the market all sorts of folks wanted to buy it. Those who did the bank drop after closing, or worked in a business that had a higher than average incidence of robbery.Jewelry stores, pawn shops, liquor stores etc. Even those who just lived in places that were dodgy, and unsafe. I wore a Point blank vest for years at my gun shop, and sold them to military people, some post carriers, and a few bus drivers, even a crossing guard. (body armor can lessen the trauma of being struck by a car ) If I would sell a person a firearm, I would generally sell them a vest if they wanted one. Dont know about now, but at the time, there was no regulation prohibiting the practice.

Thanks, I welcome informed opionions and I am always ready to be "educated".

tankgeezer
04-01-2011, 04:46 PM
I'm pretty much just gleaning from memory, 25 yrs or so ago. Things were different then.

Rising Sun*
04-01-2011, 06:02 PM
Just as I find it hard to justify unlimited owning of true assault weapons and large capacity magazines in most weapons.

We're agreed on that.

The thrust of our current gun control laws, which came about after a series of mass murders by firearm ending with a particularly nasty massacre which sparked public outrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant, was to limit access to high powered rifles; high capacity magazines; semi-automatic weapons (we didn't allow access to fully automatic weapons beforehand); and pump action shotguns. The intention was to reduce the ability to throw large quantities of heavy lead around. I don't have a problem with it as people with a genuine need for heavier calibre weapons can usually get a licence for them.

Unavoidably, the criminals still have guns, including military machine guns and even RPGs sold to them by a rogue army officer, but at least the average nut case contemplating a massacre won't be able to get his or her hands on much more than a .22 or double barrel shotgun.


It is truly asinine that a returning combat veteran cannot buy a handgun in most states if he is under 21 years of age (they canít drink alcohol or smoke either).

Somewhere around 1970 I had to be interviewed by a police licensing inspector (first officer rank, above senior sergeant) because I wanted the awesome firepower of a Savage .22 magnum / .410 over and under. It wasn't age based but related to the weapon someone wanted. The magnum qualified as a high powered firearm at a time when we didn't have any gun or shooter licensing laws for .22 and shotguns, which could be bought over the counter without a licence or identification in any number of gun, sports and department (like your WalMart) stores. The inspector was a condescending ***** who asked me, looking down his nose, what experience I had with high powered weapons. I replied that, among other things, I'd fired .22 magnum, .22 Hornet, .243, .270, .303, and 7.62mm. He gave me a smartarse look and asked where I'd fired 7.62mm and what sort. I replied along the lines "In the army. SLR and M60. I'm a machine gunner." That ended the interview and I got my licence. :D

tankgeezer
04-01-2011, 06:12 PM
I've got too many M-60's here ( can't pass up a sale ) using one for a doorstop, I'll pop it in the mail for you. ;) :)