# Discussion on the BBC Regarding Gun Legislation



## Sukerkin (Jun 4, 2010)

There is a discussion thread on the BBC site about gun ownership and gun legislation in Britain:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/are_gun_laws_tough_enough.html

Now I don't know if talking with you fellows over the years has 'corrupted' me a little (I don't think so as my opinions have always been this way) but some of the empty-headed bleating in some of the posts there make me despair of the wisdom of some of my fellow-countrymen.


----------



## knuckleheader (Jun 4, 2010)

Hey, you Brits ought to be able to figure it out for yourselves. And don't try to tell us this side of the pond what our gun laws will be. Thank you.
We have enough liberal "know better than you" types here.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 4, 2010)

It&#8217;s rare that long guns are used in crimes of any kind, kind of hard to conceal. It&#8217;s also rare that a licensed person with licensed weapons commits a crime with the said weapons. Would banning all guns make things safer for the general populace, I think in all likelihood it probable would, but I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s the right course of action. 

Many of our American friends Suk will argue that the government taking away our weapons is this huge conspiracy towards the downwards drive towards fascism and our right to defend ourselves from government tyranny. 

I just think that 99% of these guys have something snap inside of them, and up until that &#8220;snapping&#8221; moment are as sane as you or I. If someone wants to cause harm to others, they will find away to do it, with drugs, poisons, homemade explosives, knives, a metal bar or a piece of wood laying around the house. Taking away firearms will not change the intent of such people, but it will take away much of the lethality of whatever it is they are going to do.

Firearms are a part of our culture. We use them for practical reasons on the farm, and for sport or hobby reasons. Most people raised in the big cities have no use for guns because all they see are illegal handguns used in crimes. So making more laws to ban weapons is a good thing to them, like anyone with criminal intent is ever going to listen or heed a law.

The dead will be mourned and buried, the authorities will investigate, ensure all the rules and procedures were followed, see if there are any loopholes to fill in, and life will go on until someone else snaps.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 4, 2010)

Nearly all gun legislation is modeled on the premise that the state can reduce the number of illegal acts committed using a gun by restricting access to them.

In countries where guns are commonplace (the USA), such laws serve little purpose other than to restrict the abilities of people who tend to be law-abiding from acquiring guns (or *more* guns if they already have them).  Such laws do little or nothing to restrict access to guns by those who the laws are intended to most impact - the criminal community.

In countries where there has never been wide-spread private ownership of guns (England), such laws may be more effective for their intended purpose.

However, even in such countries, laws of this nature are more likely to prevent only a certain number of gun-related crimes.

In both types of countries, lack of access to a gun may serve to prevent tragedies that are caused by spur-of-the-moment killers, otherwise-honest people who 'just snap' and do something horrible with a gun.  Such people may well choose to use a different weapon if a gun is not easily available, or they may decide not to commit the act at all.  Even if they do commit the act with another weapon, their destructiveness may be somewhat limited (this may not be the case, given the recent stabbing deaths in Japan as examples).

Lack of easy access may not stop a person intent upon committing murder, a person who plots rather than being overcome by a moment's passion.  Nor is it likely to put a stop to the criminal who is intent upon using guns in commission of their crimes.  As we know from many examples, demand is usually met with supply; black markets will arise to serve the needs of criminals intent upon obtaining guns.

It can also be argued that restrictive gun laws in either types of country serve to put criminals on notice that citizens are less likely to be armed; this can be argued to embolden them.

In general, it is my opinion that restrictive gun ownership laws can be effective on a very small subset of gun-related crime in countries in which guns have never been commonly in private hands.  I feel such laws are highly unlikely to have a net positive effect in countries such as the USA in which there are nearly as many privately-owned guns as there are people, there has been a traditional gun-owning culture since the date of the USA's founding, and there is a base distrust of the motives of governments that seek to disarm citizens for *any* reason, no matter how altruistic they may seem.

Even in countries like England, it's a lot of impact on lawful gun owners (one commenter in your linked thread wanted annual psychological examinations of all licensed gun owners!) for very little positive effect.

What more commonly happens is that a tragedy happens, and many horrified people demand that someone 'do something'.  They don't much care what that something is, or how effective it is likely to be, as long as something is seen to be done.  I find such knee-jerk reactions to be counterproductive and misguided at best.  It's unfortunate that some people react that way to any tragedy.  I've heard people complain about volcanoes the same way - demanding that the government 'do something' about them.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 4, 2010)

Hey Sukes, welcome to the Den of Evil. 

First, empty headed comments on the internet are the rule, not the exception.  Newspaper/news site threads, particularly local ones, are usually the worst.  So I wouldn't despair too much.

Second, I generally see two major responses to crime problems or really any set of problems.  1) Address the root causes somehow or 2) combat, or worse just cover up, the symptoms.  Addressing crime in Britain mostly follows path two, from what I've seen.  Rather than addressing the causes of crime, the governmental response has been to ban guns, and now knives are getting the same treatment.  Of course, the problem hasn't truly been addressed, so the problem continues, and the banning gets ever more ridiculous.

However, addressing root causes are usually much more challenging and complicated than the solutions usually put forth on this site.  Ever increasing enforcement and ever increasing draconian punishments, a course pursued in the USA (so I'm not just picking on the UK  ), is also just another method of combating the symptoms.  I don't know what all the answers are, but they will involve more than tough sounding talk and putting more people in jail.

This response is also a typical human response, and you see it everywhere.  There is a thread active now about 3 states making filming the police in public illegal.  Problem: abuses by the police, which are increasingly being documented. Solution: don't address the abuses, ban the recording.  Very typical of this mindset.  Addressing root causes is a long, difficult process, and it satisfies no one's emotional needs.  So it usually isn't done.  And the problems continue.  Hooliganism in UK cities, police abuses in the US, drug crime in the US, etc etc etc.


----------



## Langenschwert (Jun 4, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Now I don't know if talking with you fellows over the years has 'corrupted' me a little (I don't think so as my opinions have always been this way) but some of the empty-headed bleating in some of the posts there make me despair of the wisdom of some of my fellow-countrymen.


 
Weapons folks have to stick together. Banning guns is rubbish. A criminal can get a gun if he wants one easily enough. Even if you could effectively keep them out of a country, remember that guns are medieval technology. Anyone with a metal lathe can make one in his basement. Even if it only fires one shot, make ten of them.

What they do here is divide and conquer. Go after the handgun owners and the long gun hunters do nothing. Go after crossbows and the classic archery people do nothing. Go after crossbows and the sword practicioners do nothing.

Here in Canada the RCMP can move a firearm from legal to prohibited with no judicial review of any kind. The only thing that stops them from banning EVERYTHING is the fact that people have successfully sued to be compensated for losing their guns. They can't afford to ban everything at once, even if they'd like to. But piecemeal, they'll get everything if we let them.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## knuckleheader (Jun 4, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Hey Sukes, welcome to the Den of Evil.
> 
> Hooliganism in UK cities, police abuses in the US, drug crime in the US, etc etc etc.


 
Do you imply no police abuse occurs in the U K, etc. etc.?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 4, 2010)

knuckleheader said:


> Do you imply no police abuse occurs in the U K, etc. etc.?



You really think that's what I said?

The answer is "no."


----------



## knuckleheader (Jun 4, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Hey Sukes, welcome to the Den of Evil.
> 
> First, empty headed comments on the internet are the rule, not the exception. Newspaper/news site threads, particularly local ones, are usually the worst. So I wouldn't despair too much.
> 
> ...


 
Hey Empty Hands, could you provide the link to the thread promoting
the crimininalization of video taping police?

I'll go one better. _Empty headed main stream reporting and demonization of firearms is the rule! World wide._


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 4, 2010)

knuckleheader said:


> Hey, you Brits ought to be able to figure it out for yourselves.



On the whole we have - it's only that I was made to despair by a number of empty-headed posters who don't think through the logical consequences of their demands. 



knuckleheader said:


> And don't try to tell us this side of the pond what our gun laws will be. Thank you.



Wouldn't dream of it.  I have my views but, other than the 'model' of behaviour portrayed by the American fictional media (which is being taken up by foolish youths over here), US modes of conduct on gun ownership or use don't impact my life.  I have voiced what I think here at MT before and am not inclined to venture into that territory again - not today at any rate.



knuckleheader said:


> We have enough liberal "know better than you" types here.



I thought you were over-supplied with Far Right Neo-Totalitarians and actually had a shortfall of true liberal thinkers ... goes to show how wrong an opinion can be.


----------



## knuckleheader (Jun 4, 2010)

So, according to you. Only left "liberal" thinkers have a grip on common sense?

ha ha ha ah ha ha


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 4, 2010)

knuckleheader said:


> Hey Empty Hands, could you provide the link to the thread promoting
> the crimininalization of video taping police?




It's called "Are Cameras the New Guns?" and you have a post in it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 4, 2010)

knuckleheader said:


> So, according to you. Only left "liberal" thinkers have a grip on common sense?
> 
> ha ha ha ah ha ha



Er, no.  Next question ...

Oh and don't get me going on how liberal means one thing to we English and another to you American's - we've been round that loop more than enough times and everyone is well sick of hearing me bang on about it.


----------



## knuckleheader (Jun 4, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> It's called "Are Cameras the New Guns?" and you have a post in it.


 
You are correct sir, I've stumbled upon it while banging away the keyboard. Thanks


----------



## knuckleheader (Jun 4, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Er, no. Next question ...
> 
> Oh and don't get me going on how liberal means one thing to we English and another to you American's - we've been round that loop more than enough times and everyone is well sick of hearing me bang on about it.


 
I shall then address American liberals as statist/socialist communist.

European liberals as "the confused ones."


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 4, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> There is a discussion thread on the BBC site about gun ownership and gun legislation in Britain:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/are_gun_laws_tough_enough.html
> 
> Now I don't know if talking with you fellows over the years has 'corrupted' me a little (I don't think so as my opinions have always been this way) but some of the empty-headed bleating in some of the posts there make me despair of the wisdom of some of my fellow-countrymen.


 

You're an American, Suke.  You just don't know it yet.  

J


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 4, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Nearly all gun legislation is modeled on the premise that the state can reduce the number of illegal acts committed using a gun by restricting access to them.


 
I don't know if you could be more wrong about this.

Gun restriction law, and weapon restriction laws in general, are about controlling the population.  The crime aspect is their excuse.

Throughout history, weapons restrictions have sought to limit the ability of a populace from standing up for itself.  From Shogun era Japan and owning Samurai swords, to their restricting Okinowans from having any weapons (which is how we get such things as the kusuri-gama, nunchaku, and tonfa), to Nazi Germany's restrictions on firearm ownership.

In the U.S. the French Louisiana code required colonist to stop all Blacks, including slaves, who possessed anything which could be used as a weapon, even such things as canes.

Up until the 1960's, it was permissible in California to carry a loaded firearm as long as it was visible.  But when the Black Panther Party did it, the California legislature came to gether to ban it.  There are many examples of gun control laws in American used to restrict the ability of minorities to carry firearms like others, not because they would be criminals, but because they might defend themselves.

So, as I first said, the aim of gun control laws is not to prevent crime, though that may be what they say.  But in reality, it is to control the populace.  Otherwise, you tell me why the .50 caliber rifle is banned in CA, when no one has ever used one in a crime anywhere in the U.S.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 4, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I don't know if you could be more wrong about this.
> 
> Gun restriction law, and weapon restriction laws in general, are about controlling the population.  The crime aspect is their excuse.



I used the word _'premise'_ to mean the same as _'excuse'_ in your terminology.



> So, as I first said, the aim of gun control laws is not to prevent crime, though that may be what they say.



I did not say the purpose behind the laws was to prevent crime; I said the premise.  I did not wish to get into a political mud-slinging statement about the _'real'_ reason behind gun control laws; and frankly I have every reason to believe that many people who support gun control laws do so because they believe the premise given, even if it is not the purpose for the law.

There are no doubt powerful people and organizations who have motives other than reducing crime for introducing gun control legislation.  As you and I both noted, their 'excuse' (or 'premise') is that such laws will reduce crime.  And many decent citizens with whom I disagree about gun-control laws believe that premise.  It is not all one grand conspiracy, but I am sure there are those who have ulterior motives.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 4, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> I just think that 99% of these guys have something snap inside of them, and up until that &#8220;snapping&#8221; moment are as sane as you or I.



My experiences lead me to HIGHLY doubt that. Maybe they were not technically "insane" before the snapping moment, but in my experience quite a few people who you may think are "normal" in routine contact are anything but.

I have spoken to people who I thought were absolutely "normal" in all respects till the right (or wrong) word was said and then all the "crazy" about mind probes, government mind control, alien abduction and tin hats started coming out.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 4, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I have spoken to people who I thought were absolutely "normal" in all respects till the right (or wrong) word was said and then all the "crazy" about mind probes, government mind control, alien abduction and tin hats started coming out.



I see you've met my aunt.


----------



## girlbug2 (Jun 4, 2010)

_Everybody_ thinks they're normal. It is the rare madman that even suspects the truth.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 4, 2010)

girlbug2 said:


> _Everybody_ thinks they're normal. It is the rare madman that even suspects the truth.



Oh, I'm crazy as a shithouse rat.  It's the rest of you who make me look normal.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 4, 2010)

girlbug2 said:


> _Everybody_ thinks they're normal. It is the rare madman that even suspects the truth.


 

Lady, I'm mad and _proud of it._ In fact, I'm a card-carrying member of the International Society of Mad Scientists, and a two-time winner of the _Cracked Globe_, also known as the _Fools, I'll destroy you all!!!!_ award.

*Bwahaha*.......*haha*....and all that..:lfao:

In all seriousness, gun control has always been about controlling the populace, mad or not. In the meantime, discussions like that one do nothing to alleviate the tragedy.

Nothing could, really.....


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 5, 2010)

knuckleheader said:


> I shall then address American liberals as statist/socialist communist.
> 
> European liberals as "the confused ones."


 
Knucklehead, your posts seem to be to all intents and purposes deliberate trolling. You are making statements  that seem, if taken at face value, to be insulting the intelligence of the posters here.

Either that or your ignorance is actually quite real. If it is you should know that we have the Right, the Centre and the Left here in politics, The Right is the Conservatives/Tories, the Centre is the Liberals and the Left is the Labour/Socialists. Our present govenment is a Conservative and Liberal Democratic one. The Labour government, known to you as the Socialists were defeated in the last election. Liberals here aren't left leaning at all, many famous leaders including Winston Churchill have been Liberals but you see most posters here know that, which is why they don't mention it. They also know that we don't tell Americans how to run their country, I've never expressed an opinion on how I think American guns laws should be...that's because I don't have an opinion on it! I really have no knowledge on which to base an opinion. 


The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have said there will be no discussions about changes to gun laws until after the inquiries and investigations are finished. If there's lessons to be learned on how the present laws are enforced or whether the laws need chaging either way is a discussion for the future.

The general opinion so far among police officers and professionals is that, frankly, there is nothing that could have been done to prevent this particular tragedy, nothing at all. That's hard on the families of those affected I know, who want a reason why their loved ones died but the truth is a man snapped and they died. No one could have known and no one could have prevented it. Everyone says at one point 'oh I'm going to kill so and so, they've just....' nine out of ten never mean it and it's forgotten, there's no one here who hasn't said it. Everyone has problems, everyone has stress, some go over the edge some don't. There was no way of knowing in advance that this man was going to snap despite people all now coming out of the woodwork. It seems he was attacked a couple of years ago and was knocked out, some are saying he had a brain injury, some say it was fear of going to prison for tax evasion, some say it was a dispute over his not dead yet mothers will, but and this is a very big but, no one could have known any, all or none of these things drove him over the top. the fact he was a licensed gun holder actually makes no diffeence, it made it easier for him to kill people..perhaps but if he was intent on killing anything would have done, a brick round a head, a knife, iron bar etc absolutely anything.

Does banning guns control a population? No, it doesn't, governments have been overthrown without the majority of the populace being armed. The Berlin Wall fell without the Germans being armed, here we aren't afraid to take to the streets, look up Poll Tax riots. We've just kicked the Labour government out though it's another argument whether thats for the better or not lol.

Every country is different, perhaps our laws do work this is only the third mass shooting in over twenty five years or so, they are very rare events, perhaps all the more shocking for that which makes people have that 'knee jerk' reaction from boths sides of the gun lobby. What is needed is cool thinking  not troll-like 'dur' thoughts), cool, sharp minds considering the laws not emotional lobbyists or cliched, trite commentators with headlines to make.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Does banning guns control a population? No, it doesn't, governments have been overthrown without the majority of the populace being armed. The Berlin Wall fell without the Germans being armed, .


 

I think I need to make a distinction between what "gun control does," and "gun control's _intent_" here, Irene. Without being insulting or meaning to ruffle anyone's feathers, the best example is the Nazi takeover of Germany and its surrounding countries. The Nazis benefitted in Germany from gun control laws passed by the Weimar Republic, and passed more weapons laws in 1938 that further restricted gun ownership, especially to Jews and other "non-citizens." They further benefitted from surrounding countries restrictions on firearms ownership when they took over those countries.

THe website of the Jews for the Preservation of FIrearms Ownership has several interesting articles, not the least is the linked one that is about the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968-linking it to the Nazi laws of 1938 in the person of the author, Senator Thomas Dodd, a Nuremberg prosecutor who _asked for the nazi Weapons law of 1938 to be translated_ before he began writing the Gun Control Act of 1968, which a prominent _anti-gun_ author is quoted as saying was not intended to control guns, but _blacks._ Indeed, our nation's earliest gun laws-restricting or prohibiting sale and ownership to various minorities, before and after the Civil war (blacks, American Indians, Chinese) were about controlling the populace, and not guns.

Gun control is about controlling _people_, not guns.

EDIT: And, no, I am *not* implying that "if the Jews had been armed, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened." The key with takeovers is that they are _takeovers_. The Nazis controlled *everything*. Just as the corporations soon will here-and in your country too, I'm afraid....


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 5, 2010)

elder999 said:


> I think I need to make a distinction between what "gun control does," and "gun control's _intent_" here, Irene. Without being insulting or meaning to ruffle anyone's feathers, the best example is the Nazi takeover of Germany and its surrounding countries. The Nazis benefitted in Germany from gun control laws passed by the Weimar Republic, and passed more weapons laws in 1938 that further restricted gun ownership, especially to Jews and other "non-citizens." They further benefitted from surrounding countries restrictions on firearms ownership when they took over those countries.
> 
> THe website of the Jews for the Preservation of FIrearms Ownership has several interesting articles, not the least is the linked one that is about the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968-linking it to the Nazi laws of 1938 in the person of the author, Senator Thomas Dodd, a Nuremberg prosecutor who _asked for the nazi Weapons law of 1938 to be translated_ before he began writing the Gun Control Act of 1968, which a prominent _anti-gun_ author is quoted as saying was not intended to control guns, but _blacks._ Indeed, our nation's earliest gun laws-restricting or prohibiting sale and ownership to various minorities, before and after the Civil war (blacks, American Indians, Chinese) were about controlling the populace, and not guns.
> 
> Gun control is about controlling _people_, not guns.


 

And having guns would have saved the Jews?
The Jews at that time weren't allowed anything, they weren't allowed to work, go to school, use the hospitals, public transport, abide in certain areas, in fact they weren't allowed to live. Picking out one law that restricted them and saying that one was the important one is hardly true. the whole country just about ( plus a few others) was against the Jews (as well as the Communists, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, gypsies, handicapped etc). 

The intent of laws is never the same as what actually happens. The subject of guns here in everyday life other than occasions like this is not the subject of conversations, debates and strong feelings it is in America. People here don't care very much one way or the other until something happens, it dies down again ( you won't here much about the Cumbrian case after a couple of weeks) and people go back to not caring. The gun thing is perhaps an American passion not European. _We simply don't care enough about guns._

We've never banned any specific group from holding weapons, perhaps if our governments do pass laws to control people it is at least is an equal opportunity banner as everyone is banned!


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> And having guns would have saved the Jews?


 
Well, no, Irene. I edited as much before you posted this. :lol:




Tez3 said:


> _We simply don't care enough about guns. _


 
On that, I'll agree with you. :lfao:



Tez3 said:


> We've never banned any specific group from holding weapons, perhaps if our governments do pass laws to control people it is at least is an equal opportunity banner as everyone is banned!


 
Oh, and this country hasn't since the 19th century, either, AFAIK. The GCA of 1968 merely targeted ways that people could _obtain_ and _own_ guns-effectively setting up a mechanism whereby the government can come and collect-as in _confiscate_-all of our guns-or those of a select grou, if they so choose, like rioting populaces in Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles that very year.....

And so, someday,  they shall...........


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 5, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Well, no, Irene. I edited as much before you posted this. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


As it's such a contentious and emotional subject in America is there a way of finding out for sure how the Americans want the gun issue to be treated and then enact laws in accordance? Such as having a referendum, yeah or nay? Or would having different states with different laws prove that to be impossible? perhaps a referendum in each state? Maybe you don't have the laws to hold a referendum?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> As it's such a contentious and emotional subject in America is there a way of finding out for sure how the Americans want the gun issue to be treated and then enact laws in accordance? Such as having a referendum, yeah or nay? Or would having different states with different laws prove that to be impossible? perhaps a referendum in each state? Maybe you don't have the laws to hold a referendum?


 
It's not at all contentious. Last year, in this Gallup poll, American support for stricter gun laws was lower than ever-it's been running about 50-50 since 1990, with some saying they're too strict, some saying not strict enough, and a majority saying they're fine the way they are. In truth, there's almost no difficulty getting what you want unless you live in a few more restrictive areas, or you want a machine gun...(I want a Thompson, dammit! :lfao: )

Why would we hold a referendum? It's part and parcel of our founding documents, the highest law in the land:



> the right of the People to keep and bear arms* shall not* be infringed.-2nd Amendment to the Constitution (the pertinent part, anyway :lol: )


 
And it's been upheld over and over again to be an individual right, by the highest court in the land.....


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 5, 2010)

elder999 said:


> It's not at all contentious. Last year, in this Gallup poll, American support for stricter gun laws was lower than ever-it's been running about 50-50 since 1990, with some saying they're too strict, some saying not strict enough, and a majority saying they're fine the way they are. In truth, there's almost no difficulty getting what you want unless you live in a few more restrictive areas, or you want a machine gun...(I want a Thompson, dammit! :lfao: )
> 
> Why would we hold a referendum? It's part and parcel of our founding documents, the highest law in the land:
> 
> ...


 

If it's that unaninous why is there so much dissent lol! If people think the laws are fine it shouldn't be such an emotive and contentious subject, it would just 'be'.
A referendum gives the government no choice in what they should do, no fluffing around the edges, no excuses, it's straight down the middle. Elections are fine, you vote for the politician who matches closest your views on _most_ things, a referendum asks one question only and gives one answer. You don't give the politicians a chance to smudge their answers.
It's good sometimes for the people to speak but of course a democracy means only you are voting for the people who will make the decisions not for you to make the decisions!


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 5, 2010)

There is "dissent" because the modern media allows a vocal minority to have a platform that gives them more recognition and clout than they deserve.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 5, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> There is "dissent" because the modern media allows a vocal majority to have a platform that gives them more recognition and clout than they deserve.


 
But it sells though doesn't it, both sides will watch the television and buy the newspapers and both sides can have equally vocal groups so give the quiet majority a voice!


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 6, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> If it's that unaninous why is there so much dissent lol! If people think the laws are fine it shouldn't be such an emotive and contentious subject, it would just 'be'.
> A referendum gives the government no choice in what they should do, no fluffing around the edges, no excuses, it's straight down the middle. Elections are fine, you vote for the politician who matches closest your views on _most_ things, a referendum asks one question only and gives one answer. You don't give the politicians a chance to smudge their answers.


 

Only certain States have the referendum ability.  About half do not.  That means that there is no direct way to tell out elected officials what to do.  And there is no ability to do so at the Federal level.

Either way, we have the Constitution, which gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms.  The only problem is that our Supreme Court has utilized its position, not to determine legallity, but to put forth its own political 
agenda, thus subverting the Constitution in the first place.

And although there are those that don't believe it, I do think that there is a systematic and intentional whithering away of our rights.



> It's good sometimes for the people to speak but of course a democracy means only you are voting for the people who will make the decisions not for you to make the decisions!


 
You are incorrect.  In a democracy, one votes directly on the issues presented before the electorate.  It is in a republic which one votes for people to "vote" for you.


----------



## Langenschwert (Jun 8, 2010)

elder999 said:


> EDIT: And, no, I am *not* implying that "if the Jews had been armed, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened." The key with takeovers is that they are _takeovers_. The Nazis controlled *everything*. Just as the corporations soon will here-and in your country too, I'm afraid....


 
Remeber that those Jews who armed themselves made a hell of a lot of trouble for the Nazis:



> On February 16, 1943, Heinrich Himmler ordered that the Warsaw ghetto be exterminated on April 19. The plan was to give Hitler a _Judenrein_ Warsaw as a present for his April 20 birthday.
> On that night of April 19, the Warsaw Jews partook of the Passover Seder. Since September 1939, they had eaten the bitter herbs of slavery. Now, they were drinking the wine of freedom.
> The Nazi Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, wrote in his diary, the joke cannot last much longer, but it shows what the Jews are capable of when they have arms in their hands.[13]
> The Nazis brought in tanks. The Jews were ready with explosives. First one tank and then a second were immobilized in the middle of the street, in flames, their crews burned alive. Ringelblum recalled:
> ...


 
And good for them.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Langenschwert (Jun 8, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> And although there are those that don't believe it, I do think that there is a systematic and intentional whithering away of our rights.


 
Of course there is. We have the same thing here in Canada, whose Liberal party has a deliberate disarmament agenda. The Conservative Party pays lip service to keeping guns in the hands of Canadians, but only because it's important to a lot of their rural supporters. We have no actual "Libertarian" party here... just neo-fascists (Liberal and New Democrat) and corporate toadies (Conservatives). None of them have the best interests of Canadians at heart.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 8, 2010)

Langenschwert said:


> Remeber that those Jews who armed themselves made a hell of a lot of trouble for the Nazis:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
This is a whole big thing to get into and frankly I'm not. There were Resistance fighters all over Europe even some Germans, it has nothing to do with gun laws and totally nothing to do with Cumbria.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 8, 2010)

Langenschwert said:


> We have no actual "Libertarian" party here... and corporate toadies (Conservatives). None of them have the best interests of Canadians at heart.


 
Well no, we do have a libertarian party here, it just gets its *** kicked in every election. Most of us libertarians are with the Conservatives, in fact we make up a huge proportion of the party in Ontario. 

The corporate "toadies" to which you refer are traditionally the Liberals. Until the donation rules changed a few years ago, the vast majority of Liberal donations, dollar wise, were from companys and company owners. By contrast the CPC had 95% of its donations from individuals, most of which were under $50 each.

It was the conservatives who brought in the rules that no companies or unions can donation to political parties. And believe me, Elections Canada enforces this to the letter.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 8, 2010)

The following is a rather good 'post' that lays out one side of the gun control 'argument' very well. The lass he refers to is well known, to me at least and I've previously posted a link here at MT to a video of her giving testimony at some hearing about gun law.

The poster of this text is one of the contributors over at the BBC blog on the issue, so these are not my words - I do rather agree with him tho' (and paragraphed the post as it was 'mono-bloc'):

==========================================================

"Greetings from America. Of course what happened was a tragedy, but let me offer a couple of real life situations to you good British folks to consider, and maybe give a little thought to, as you think about how you would like to see your government react.

First off, let me say that I love Britain and her people (my wife of nearly 20 years is English), so please spare me the "if you are posting from the US or are a foreigner, Mind your own Goddamn business" treatment, as one of your posters so politely put it.

First example: In Texas several years ago, a lunatic similar to yours, went into a restaurant and started shooting people. I can't remember how many people were killed that day, but it was quite a few. One woman who survived, had come in to have dinner with her parents. Her parents were not so fortunate as she was, they both died. As the woman cowered under a tablecloth see could see the murderer walking causally around the restaurant as he fired. She knew that she could have easily shot the man and stopped the killings if she had only had her handgun in her purse. Instead she could only curse the laws that forbid her from carrying her gun. She had dutifully obeyed those laws, left her gun in her car, and as a result had watched helplessly as her parents died along with the others. After that day, the woman vowed that she would do all she could to prevent something like that from happening again. She set about working to change the laws in Texas to allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. She is today one of the country's most prominate gun rights activist and partly due to her hard work most states in the union allow their citizens to carry concealed weapons.

This has proven to be strong deterrent to crime and the documented instances of everyday people exercising this right to stop a crime in progress or prevent a crime that was about to take place, now number literally in the millions. If you find it incredible that the knowledge that the average person may be armed is enough to make a criminal think twice, here is an example to prove the point. Florida has been a popular destination for European tourist for many years now, but several years back that popularity among Europeans was seerly curtailed in the wake of a rash of robbery and murder that seemed to be specifically targeting people driving rental cars. When some of the killers were finally caught, they were asked why they had been targeting people driving rental cars, they said that they knew those people were likely to be unarmed tourist whereas local people were likely to be armed. Simple as that. (At the time rental cars prominently displayed the fact that they were rental cars via bumper stickers and the like and that practice was stopped immediately as a result). 

Personally I have carried a gun for practically my entire adult life, and have prevented a crime being committed against me on four separate occasions. (note, I do live in Atlanta, Georgia which is one of the most crime ridden cities in the US, so my experiences would not be typical). The Point is that citizens being armed is a positive check on crime and the right, or in the case of the British the "privilege", to own guns to hunt, control pests and whatnot, is totally irrelevant to this issue. 
While it is certainly true that a homicidal killer, like the one you had in Cumbria, is not motivated along the same lines that the average criminal is, the principal of the average citizen being armed is exactly the same. A case in point: recently here in my home state of Georgia a disturbed individual showed up at a construction site and began shooting at people. The man fired several times, one man was injured, but when one of the construction workers retrieved a handgun from his car and shot the man, the incident was instantly over without further loss of life.

Surely it would not take a great deal of imagination on the part of even the most sincere "Ban all Guns" British subjects among you to picture what the outcome could have been in Cumbria, had just one of the killer's victims been able to shoot back. If any of you are by now (hopefully) beginning to think that this idea of average people being armed might bear further consideration, please Google Kennesaw Georgia and read up on their rather unique approach to this issue. Kennesaw is a small community just outside of Atlanta that began to experience a crime wave that spilled over from the big city back in the 80's. Their solution was a simple one. They did hire more police, or install cameras every where. They simply passed an ordinance that "REQUIRED EVERY HOUSHOLD TO OWN A GUN FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE OCCUPANTS" Can you guess what the result was? Far from being the "wild west" scenario that one of the other posters hysterically prophesied would be the outcome of everyone being armed, the crime rate plummeted to near zero.

Can the attitude of the average British subject ever be changed regarding guns in the hands of the people? I hope and pray that it can for the sake of your country and the vast majority of your people who are law abiding. As an inspirational example of the kind of change in your thinking that can be achieved, I submit to you the case of my British born and bred wife. When we married and she came to live here in the US, ahe was just as gun-phobic as many of the posters on here have demonstrated themselves to be.

We settled in a suburban community just outside of Atlanta, and she gradually became accustomed to the fact that I kept guns for personal protection (not "sport" or hunting, again that is an entirely separate and irrelevant matter). Then one day, while I was at work, she became aware that someone had entered our garage and was rummaging around. She called the police, just as you would, but she had another resource that the people of Britain don't. When the burglar emerged from our garage carrying an armload of tools he intended for the local pawn shop, he was confronted by my wife who was still speaking with the police operator on the cordless phone she was holding in one hand, and by my .44 magnum revolver that she was holding in her other hand.(yes, that's the one made famous by "Dirty Harry") The burglar promptly lay on the ground when my wife asked him to do so and awaited the arrival of the police. When the police arrived they were immensely pleased with the situation and after identifying the man, informed my wife that he had an extensive criminal record including several violent assaults. That was a few years ago now, but my wife is still regarded as something of a folk hero by our local police. That story came to a happy ending, but think for a moment how it could have turned out differently. Suppose that the man had decided to try our house instead of our garage and suppose that my wife had not had a gun day. The story could have likely then ended with the coroner being called and the police writing a report and wondering who could have done this. 

Even the best and most efficient police force in the world is extremely unlikely to be standing by you when a violent criminal strikes. It is simply not possible. Then all of the gun laws, neighbourhood snitches, and psychological tests in the world wont help you, the victim. Please think about this and consider for a moment that the solution for achieving greater safety for you and your families does not lie with "getting the government to do something". It lies with each and everyone of you taking responsibility for yourselves."


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 8, 2010)

A great part of Cumbria is armed as is North Yorkshire. Nearly all of us have shotguns and rifles. Guns are carried in vehicles as well as at home. 

The majority of people here aren't gun phobic they just don't want to be armed. What suits one place doesn't suit another. 

Could someone carrying a weapon have stopped the Cumbrian killer, very doubtful the way he was stopping, shooting then speeding off down back roads and country lanes. My professional opinion is that no he wouldn't have been stopped by someone carrying a weapon.

I would say thanks for the advice mate but we'll do things here as we want to not as others think it should be done, it may be right or wrong but it will be *our* way.


----------



## Langenschwert (Jun 8, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Well no, we do have a libertarian party here, it just gets its *** kicked in every election. Most of us libertarians are with the Conservatives, in fact we make up a huge proportion of the party in Ontario.
> 
> The corporate "toadies" to which you refer are traditionally the Liberals. Until the donation rules changed a few years ago, the vast majority of Liberal donations, dollar wise, were from companys and company owners. By contrast the CPC had 95% of its donations from individuals, most of which were under $50 each.
> 
> It was the conservatives who brought in the rules that no companies or unions can donation to political parties. And believe me, Elections Canada enforces this to the letter.


 
Interesting.  Learn something new every day. I wonder how many of the "Libertarian" Conservatives are former Alliance/Reform members. It's nice to see a large "grass roots" financial base in the Conservative Party. The no union thing must have hit the NDP hard. Poor "Taliban Jack".

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Either way, we have the Constitution, which gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms.  The only problem is that our Supreme Court has utilized its position, not to determine legallity, but to put forth its own political agenda, thus subverting the Constitution in the first place.



Minor quibble: the Constitution does not *give* anyone anything.  It forbids the US federal government from infringing upon specified (enumerated) rights such as those contained in the Bill of Rights.  By extension, the States are likewise forbidden from infringing on some of them (via the 14th Amendment).

That which is given can be taken away.  The Constitution specifically says that we have our rights from our Creator, and no one may take them away for any reason whatsoever.  There are governments which 'give' rights to their citizens; I feel our way is superior to theirs for that reason.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The Constitution specifically says that we have our rights from our Creator, and no one may take them away for any reason whatsoever. There are governments which 'give' rights to their citizens; I feel our way is superior to theirs for that reason.


 
Totally 100 percent agree. Our 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting.

I am a free man. You cannot be free if you cannot defend yourself. And you cannot defend yourself if you don't have the means to defend yourself.

Nor can citizens be free if they cannot unite and take their government back by force if need be. But to do that also requires arms. So they must 'keep and bear arms', for the other Amendments of the Constitution are meaningless if they cannot be enforced *BY THE PEOPLE*.

And guns, just like rocks, knives, hammers, baseball bats, cars, and yes fist and feet, don't kill people. It's people who have it in their hearts they want to kill. Like they say, the mind is the weapon, all else is supplemental.
 
Deaf


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 9, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Minor quibble: the Constitution does not *give* anyone anything. It forbids the US federal government from infringing upon specified (enumerated) rights such as those contained in the Bill of Rights. By extension, the States are likewise forbidden from infringing on some of them (via the 14th Amendment).
> 
> That which is given can be taken away. The Constitution specifically says that we have our rights from our Creator, and no one may take them away for any reason whatsoever. There are governments which 'give' rights to their citizens; I feel our way is superior to theirs for that reason.


 
With all due respect Bill, you're wrong.

First, the word "Creator" (or God, or Lord (except in the date) appears no where in the U.S. Constitution.  Even more so, it does not say from where we receive our rights.   

What you are probably refering to is the U.S. Declaration of Independence, *which has no legal binding whatsoever.  *It is a philosophical presentation.  A position paper, if you will.

Even still, it say nothing about the ownership or bearing of arms.  What it does say is this:  



> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...


 
It says nothing about arms.  Now, I do believe that the Founders thought that the keeping and bearing of arms was the best way to secure those inalienable rights.  But, that is a far cry from saying that the keeping of an AK-47 or M-16 was authorized by a "Creator".

What the U.S. Constitution does is prevent the government from intruding on your right to keep and bear arms.  In essence, if not in writing, it is giving you that right.

As a simpler example, did the "Creator" thusly spake:  _No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. _

Where did the "Creator" give us this right?  In what religious text or philosophy can this be found?

Even when speaking of the Founders, the reason for the Bill of Rights was because *anti-federalists* would not sign onto the Constitution without it.  The Federalist Papers actually argue *against *a Bill of Rights.  For reasons other then denying the people the right to bear arms, I'll grant you.  But none the less, this was not an original product of the Constitution, and was adopted four years after it was ratified.

As a further point, the 14th Amendment doesn't even apply to the 2nd Amendment.  The Supreme Court Justices refused to incorporate it.  (Is it any wonder why I see a "conspiracy" to deny us this Constitutional right.)  And this is why we have had many years of debate of whether the 2nd Amendment applys to individuals or States, or yada yada.  This is why we had State religions until the 14th Amendment.

So yes, Bill, the Constitution does *give *us our right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 9, 2010)

I'd disagree. The Constitution tells the gvt. what it can or can't do..not "US". It may be splitting hairs in the long run, but in spirit our country was founded on the idea that we already have ALL rights except for those we allow the gvt to limit. So in effect they don't "grant" us anything..we give them the authority to limit our freedoms via legislation.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 9, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> *What the U.S. Constitution does is prevent the government from intruding on your right to keep and bear arms*.
> 
> So yes, Bill, the Constitution does *give *us our right to keep and bear arms.


 
That other thing you said-that's what it does. It *preserves* that right, and all the others enumerated therein. It says what the government *can't* do-it does not confer, or give, anything. This principle can be seen to be upheld in later amendments, for instance:



> *Fourteenth Amendment*
> *Section 1.* All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> 
> ...


 
Aren't you a _lawyer_? That explains it! :lfao:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 9, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I'd disagree. The Constitution tells the gvt. what it can or can't do..not "US". It may be splitting hairs in the long run, but in spirit our country was founded on the idea that we already have ALL rights except for those we allow the gvt to limit. So in effect they don't "grant" us anything..we give them the authority to limit our freedoms via legislation.


 
Is that so?

Do you have a right to get married, or do you need a marriage license? 

Do you have a right to drive a motor vehicle, or do you need a driver's license?

Do you have a right to carry a concealed firearm, or do you need a permit?  What is really telling is that they have actually denied this right in certain places, namely Washington D.C.

Did slaves, who were considered human by the Federalist Papers, have the same right to have firearms as others? Did they not forbid Blacks, even free ones, from having firearms? And it wasn't it all perfectly legal.

And another question: What are "all rights"? Where would you find these so-called "rights"? Where did our creator "endow us" with these rights?

I get what you are saying, truly I do. As a philosophical belief, I agree with you. But the fact of the matter is that Bill's agrument is just plain wrong, legally and historically speaking. One could argue that what he, and you, are saying was the intent, but in their philosphical paper, the Declaration of Independence, it doesn't even argue it.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 9, 2010)

elder999 said:


> That other thing you said-that's what it does. It *preserves* that right, and all the others enumerated therein. It says what the government *can't* do-it does not confer, or give, anything. This principle can be seen to be upheld in later amendments, for instance:


 
That's why the "gives" was in quotations. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't in the original Constitution, and therefore, legally, the people were not entitled to it. And, in fact, it was only grudgingly added.

Not only that, but Bill stated that the Creator endowed us with the right to bear weapons. Nowhere in any documentation does it say this.

What is again interesting is why there would be a need for these Amendments if they were already in fact rights.  Even still, Bill's argument is that they are the rights given by the Creator.  Tell me, in whatever religious philosophy, that the Creator talked about voting.



> Aren't you a _lawyer_? That explains it! :lfao:


 
Uh, no, I'm not. 

I am a police officer who has studied, and continues to study, the readings and intent of the Founders of the Constitution, as well as subsequent case law and it's historical context.

Geez, Elder, since you went on hiatus from here, your ability of argumentation has sorely declined. I am actually beginning to believe that someone took over your screen name. An ad hominem attack??? Really.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> That's why the "gives" was in quotations. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't in the original Constitution, and therefore, legally, the people were not entitled to it. And, in fact, it was only grudgingly added.


 
Added it was, though-and it doesn't "give" or *give* anything- it _restricts_ the government.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not only that, but Bill stated that the Creator endowed us with the right to bear weapons. Nowhere in any documentation does it say this.


 
And it surely doesn't say that anywhere in the Constitution-I didn't argue for a moment that it did.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> What is again interesting is why there would be a need for these Amendments if they were already in fact rights.


 
And surely someone who has:



5-0 Kenpo said:


> studied, and continues to study, the readings and intent of the Founders of the Constitution, as well as subsequent case law and it's historical context.


 

would understand from the arguments at the time-from reading the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, _precisely_ why it was agreed to make those very Amendments that we call the Bill of Rights, when, in fact, to a man the founders believed that they _were_ already rights.

They didn't want them to be _infringed_ upon by the government. *Ever*



> "I hope, therefore,* a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government* as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
> Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98


 



> Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; *together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." *
> Samuel Adams


 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Even still, Bill's argument is that they are the rights given by the Creator. Tell me, in whatever religious philosophy, that the Creator talked about voting.


 
Where, exactly, is "voting" mentioned in the Bill of Rights? (No where, though you might construe it to be protected by the ninth Amendment)_Voting is a privilege._ More to the point, the founders believed those rights were natural, or "God-given" rights-again, something someone who had read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers would know:



> You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; *rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."*
> John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President


 







5-0 Kenpo said:


> Geez, Elder, since you went on hiatus from here, your ability of argumentation has sorely declined. I am actually beginning to believe that someone took over your screen name. An ad hominem attack??? Really.


 
*Not *really. Only a police officer would consider being called a lawyer in reference to an argument about the Constitution an "ad hominem attack." :lol:
(I honestly _thought_ you were a law-school graduate...)


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Is that so?
> 
> Do you have a right to get married, or do you need a marriage license?


 
IS marriage mentioned in the Bill of Rights? More to the point, in many places, (like New Mexico) there is common law marriage, and no license is needed. Even more to the point, the state doesn't marry you, a preacher doesn't marry you: two people marry *each other*/



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Do you have a right to drive a motor vehicle, or do you need a driver's license?


 
Where is driving mentioned in the Constitution, save Congress's right to regulate commerce? Pretty sure it's a privilege, anyway.




5-0 Kenpo said:


> Do you have a right to carry a concealed firearm, or do you need a permit? What is really telling is that they have actually denied this right in certain places, namely Washington D.C.


 
And, sadly, this is in keeping with the Constitution's mention of regulatory powers for the states-as long as a permitting process for the "right to keep and bear arms" is provided (where in the Constitution does it say "concealed?"Nowhere-CCW is a privilege) then such measures are Constitutional-until such time as courts rule otherwise, anyway....





5-0 Kenpo said:


> Did slaves, who were considered human by the Federalist Papers, have the same right to have firearms as others? Did they not forbid Blacks, even free ones, from having firearms? And it wasn't it all perfectly legal.


 
In the early days _states_ also forbade Catholics and Jews from voting-New York, for example. And, actually, free blacks could own firearms in New York.....again, all perfectly legal, and perfectly Constitutional....nor did they negate the notion that such rights are conferred by God. 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> And another question: What are "all rights"? Where would you find these so-called "rights"? Where did our creator "endow us" with these rights?


 
Ooh, I know-just before you're born an angel touches you on your lips and says, _Shhh! Forget what you know!_ That's when your rights are endowed, and that's why you have that dimple on your upper lip: it's where the angel touched you!

Honestly.






5-0 Kenpo said:


> But the fact of the matter is that Bill's agrument is just plain wrong, legally and historically speaking. .


 
Actually, it's not wrong. It's just what the founders said, and what subsequent cases law and commentary have said. 

Just what books have you been "studying and continuing to study?" :lfao:

Oh, yeah, and the Declaration of Independence (our "philosophical document? I *like* that! :asian: ) says:



> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that *they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights*, that *among these* are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


 
"Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" kind of clearly says that "rights" come from "God." and "among these are" implies that there are others besides "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 10, 2010)

Edited.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 10, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Added it was, though-and it doesn't "give" or *give* anything- it _restricts_ the government.


 
By restricting the government it establishes the right.




> And surely someone who has:
> 
> would understand from the arguments at the time-from reading the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, _precisely_ why it was agreed to make those very Amendments that we call the Bill of Rights, when, in fact, to a man the founders believed that they _were_ already rights.
> 
> ...


 
This is not merely about the Bill of Rights.  It is about anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it states that the people have the right to a thing, which would include those Amendments after the Bill of Rights.  Are the rights enumerated in other subsequent Amendments less of a right due to their numerical order on a piece of paper?  Rights to vote, such as described in the 15th and 19th Amendments:



> Section 1. The *right* of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
> 
> "The *right* of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."


 

So voting, according to the U.S. Constitution, is a right, not a privilege.  You are wrong in that aspect.

So was this a right instituted by man through the Constitution, or the Creator?

I will submit to you that the inalienable right was to liberty, to wit, the best way to ensure it was to allow people to vote for the people they would choose to represent them, and not be forced to be represented by people whom they had no say in electing or denying their election.  

Just as in the same way that the Founders believed that the best way to secure life was for the people to keep and bear arms.

I propose this to you:  Is there anywhere in the Constitution that says that the 2nd Amendment can't be repealed?  

No, there is not.  It can be repealed by a subsequent Amendment, just as  the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

As far as the quotes you cited:




> "I hope, therefore,* a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government* as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
> Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98
> 
> Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; *together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." *
> Samuel Adams


 
These quotes are vague.  What does it mean "the right to defend them in the best manner they can?  Defend in what way?  Which is the best manner?  Defend from whom, the government or other individuals?  In terms of keeping and bearing arms, how do we know that this is the best way of accomplishing these goals?

Once again, I will submit to you that they believed, as do I, that the personal ownership of arms is the best, and truly only way, to reliably do so.  But this is a far cry from saying that the Creator gave us such a right.  

What if I developed a better way to secure life, liberty, and puruit of happiness other then the keeping and bearing of arms.  Would I then be able to Constitutionally strip away people's right to do so?



> *Not *really. Only a police officer would consider being called a lawyer in reference to an argument about the Constitution an "ad hominem attack." :lol:
> (I honestly _thought_ you were a law-school graduate...)


 
No problem.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 10, 2010)

elder999 said:


> IS marriage mentioned in the Bill of Rights? More to the point, in many places, (like New Mexico) there is common law marriage, and no license is needed. Even more to the point, the state doesn't marry you, a preacher doesn't marry you: two people marry *each other*/
> 
> Where is driving mentioned in the Constitution, save Congress's right to regulate commerce? Pretty sure it's a privilege, anyway.
> 
> ...


 
This was a reply to Arch's comment that we have all rights until we allow the government to restrict them.

But then again, how can you restrict something that is a right? Especially one granted by a Creator. 

As to your last comment, how is carrying a concealed firearm a privilege when the Constitution says that I have a right to *bear* arms. In any event, you cannot carry a firearm in California if it is loaded. Now, how is that allowing you to bear arms. And since a certain group is carrying unloaded, non-concealed firearms, there is legislation being pushed through that will prevent even that. In essence, they will prevent you from bearing arms altogether, much less the fact that they already prevent you from carrying one that can do you any good. 





> In the early days _states_ also forbade Catholics and Jews from voting-New York, for example. And, actually, free blacks could own firearms in New York.....again, all perfectly legal, and perfectly Constitutional....nor did they negate the notion that such rights are conferred by God.


 
You're right. And that was because there was no law in the Constitution which allowed, ie. gave the right to by preventing the government from infringing upon (see where this is going), such people to vote. But, subsequent legislation did.

Now, was this a right conferred by God, or by man. And that is the main gist of the whole argument. This is not merely a legal debate, but also a philosophical one. It is about where our rights come from, and what are the nature of those rights.

And because free Blacks in one State out of thirteen were allowed to own firearms, that fulfills the idea that the government shall not infringe upon the right anywhere???

Besides which, until the 14th Amendment, states had every right to restrict, or even prevent firearm ownership. That they didn't do so did not mean that somehow it was a right which they couldn't prevent.




> Actually, it's not wrong. It's just what the founders said, and what subsequent cases law and commentary have said.


 
Case law since when? That is an important point. If the Founders believed that only certain classes and types of people should be able to own arms, and those rights were conferred by God, then my right as a Black man is contingent upon the government's approval, not God's.

In terms of legallity, it is a somewhat of a moot point. It is my right, whether the government says it is or not, correct. That is the point, right. That my rights were given to me by God, not the government. 



> Just what books have you been "studying and continuing to study?" :lfao:


 
Just the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers (which I am currently reading), the Anti-Federalist Papers, The Rights of Man, Common Sense, etc. Those things.



> Oh, yeah, and the Declaration of Independence (our "philosophical document? I *like* that! :asian: ) says:
> 
> "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" kind of clearly says that "rights" come from "God." and "among these are" implies that there are others besides "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."


 
Fair enough Elder, but it begs the question: What are those other rights?

Is it the right to a house? A right to a steady income of a million dollars? A right to health care? A right to drive a car? How far does one take this?

The only thing that we can say for sure that the Founders agreed upon were inalieanable rights given to us by our Creator are those which they enumerated, and the subsequent laws passed were enacted to secure those specific rights.

Otherwise, if I enacted a right to a house, wouldn't that then have been proscribed by God?


----------



## chaos1551 (Jun 10, 2010)

I think you guys should add into the discussion whether or not there is a creator.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 10, 2010)

chaos1551 said:


> I think you guys should add into the discussion whether or not there is a creator.



Why?  It's not relevant to what we're discussing.  

We're talking about what the Founding Fathers believed is the basis of our rights, and what those rights entailed.  It doesn't matter whether there is an actual Creator or not.


----------



## chaos1551 (Jun 11, 2010)

Tension breaker.  My apologies.  Carry on.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 11, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> *Why? It's not relevant to what we're discussing. *
> 
> We're talking about what the Founding Fathers believed is the basis of our rights, and what those rights entailed. It doesn't matter whether there is an actual Creator or not.


 
Actually it is relevant because in a previous post Bill Mattocks said

 "That which is given can be taken away. The Constitution specifically says that we have our rights *from our Creator*, and no one may take them away for any reason whatsoever. There are governments which 'give' rights to their citizens; I feel our way is superior to theirs for that reason. "

Therefore bringing up the subject of a Creator and making it a legitimate subject for discussion here. If there is no Creator how were these rights conferred, if there is a Creator, do those rights only pertain to those who believe in said Creator, etc etc, you get the gist.


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 11, 2010)

Let's keep the convo back on topic, shall we?  

The presence, or the lack of a presence, of lawfully owned firearms has no bearing on the crime rates of a particular society.  

People who lawfully own firearms in the US, have no felonies on their records, are not users of illegal substances, are not members of subversive organizations, are not habitual drunkards, etc.  If they fail to mention any of these on ATF4473, then the purchase is illegal.  

If you pass laws that attack the right of the law-abiding people to keep and bear arms, you're missing the big picture, since criminals tend to thumb their collective noses at the laws.  We can always look at the "gun-free paradise" of Jamaica, where the drug lords have absolutely no problem arming their gangs with high quality firearms, despite guns being illegal for lawful civilian ownership.  

Even if you strip away the right of the people to lawfully keep and bear arms, criminals will still find ways of committing mass-murder.  The Bath School Massacre easily shows what a dedicated murderer can do with commonly available materials.  

Or, in the case of Timothy McVeigh, you can see what someone can do with an old vehicle, motorcycle racing fuel, and fertilizer.  

It's not a lawful firearms ownership issue; it's a cultural issue, plain and simple.  The UK has had a much less violent culture than the US, throughout the years.  Banning firearms has had no effect in reducing crime rates there, since the same people who are part of a less violent society continue to be less violent, whereas if firearms were banned in a more violent society, such as Jamaica, the same violent society will continue to be violent.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 11, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Actually it is relevant because in a previous post Bill Mattocks said
> 
> "That which is given can be taken away. The Constitution specifically says that we have our rights *from our Creator*, and no one may take them away for any reason whatsoever. There are governments which 'give' rights to their citizens; I feel our way is superior to theirs for that reason. "
> 
> Therefore bringing up the subject of a Creator and making it a legitimate subject for discussion here. If there is no Creator how were these rights conferred, if there is a Creator, do those rights only pertain to those who believe in said Creator, etc etc, you get the gist.


 
We're not discussing whether those rights came from an actual Creator.  What we are discussing is where the Founding Fathers believed those rights came from.  

It's really a matter of their intent, and the foundation, whether right or wrong, of the philosophy underlying the rights inherent in the poeple of the U.S.


----------

