quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiyari

Nevertheless, many of the current ills in the USA [specifically, the 'Rule of Law']
are evils inherited from our Brit origins.

Now I want what is in your coffee!
Without the rule of law,
you will have no democracy whatsoever but anarchy,
which might be what you want.

Inadequate as western democracy is and it is smoke and mirrors,
it is better than running the gauntlet of uneducated rednecks with guns
robbing, mugging and killing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Maybe the west should do the world a favour and ban cars on health grounds.
They are a menace after all.

You can make love to your gun for all I care, if that makes you feel good, fine.
But the idea it is to protect yourself is nonsense.

If I was going to kill you with a gun,
it would be from behind and when you are least expecting it.

Hmm rather like good old fashioned sex
when a man didn't have to worry about the law. LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiyari

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiyari

IMO we need another "Revolutionary" one [sm=mad.gif]

The first one wasn't revolutionary.
It was about the political establishment of the colonies seizing power for themselves.
The average colonist didn't get anything out of it.
Just look at who was in the political establishment then and who is now.
You will find many of the same families.

As I understand it, it was the 'landed' gentry behind it...
Nevertheless, many of the current ills in the USA [specifically, the 'Rule of Law']
are evils inherited from our Brit origins.

We need to 'lose' those.

Perhaps then, a purer [baser] 'Revolt'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Casie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aileen68

Why are people so offended by people who legally own firearms?

Because, alot of people believe if they are against something everyone should be. And no one should be allowed to do so. However while I am a proud gun owner I don't tell people they should own guns, so stop telling me because you don't do so to not own guns. Gun control is about control. In a country where people are not allowed to own guns, how would they prevent a government from completely taking over their lifes and becoming a dictatorship? Oh, I forgot most people like the government to think for them...it's easier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiyari

Does't reveal thy fundamental disrespect of my country of birth ~
"uneducated rednecks with guns"

In Retort:
"The first thing we do,"
said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is
"kill all the lawyers."

...though if has't some barrister thee be especially fond of, none of MY bee's wax

[:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Absolutemaster

Has anyone heard of a concept called escalation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

That's kind of what gets me puzzled too...

If people own guns for self-defense... why do they go on about having fifty firearms in their home?

I mean... how many fucking hands do they have?!!! 

And what if there's a burglary in their home? WHO gets those lovely weapons?

It's fucked up, Sugar, it's waaaaaaaaaay fucked up. Surrender your weapons now, and stick some daffodils up your bottom. You'll be much, much happier, I promise. Oh, and this goes to ALL OF YOU guntoting maniacs out here :-) . I'm saying this to Sugar because... well, because I can.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
Yes... the most armed society on the planet...

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
the most violent society in the world...

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
the most paranoid society ever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Ghita its not very common but hunting does take place here. Mainly its an upperclass sport. If the lower classes do it its called poaching. [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: spiral23

youre all mad as a box of frogs......but then im english...[:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiyari

Does't reveal thy fundamental disrespect of my country of birth ~
"uneducated rednecks with guns"

In Retort:
"The first thing we do,"
said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is
"kill all the lawyers."

...though if has't some barrister thee be especially fond of, none of MY bee's wax

[:'(]

I was referring to gun totting rednecks from any country just as I have been referring to the inadequacies of democracy in all western countries and the stupidity of believing in ones national myth, whatever ones nationality is.

If I was unclear, I apologize.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I have no doubt that guns are a part of the American culture but I think you are stretching it somewhat to say countries with low gun ratios are 3rd world countries or dictatorships. That is pure gun fantasy and something you wish rather than can prove and it is to back up your argument. Democracy has more to do with culture than guns. The reason the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand have democracies is because they inherited political establishments from Britain. India has a democracy because they took over parts of the British political culture that they thought would serve them well. The Dutch have a long tradition of democracy that is irrelevent to the number of guns in its society. (Democracy being reletive to the period of history you look at).

As for the OP on why no one will invade America. Guns are a red herring. No one wantsd to invade America. Destroy it maybe but not occupy it. If there is a danger to American democracy, the biggest danger comes from Americans and not foreigners. The patriotism that says if you disagree with the state you are 'unAmerican', an idea that people in other democratic countries find laughable. You just can't be unFrench, unBritish, unGerman, unDutch.


EDIT The low gun ratio in Britain is through popular democratic demand, rather like the banning of smoking in public places and has nothing to do with dictatorships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Believe it or not....guns are part of American culture. America's founding fathers believed that the only true way to prevent a government from falling into totalitarianism is if the leaders are under a constant threat of revolution and revolt. It states specifically in the Declaration of Independance that the people always have the right to alter or abolish their government.

quote:

Fun with the
SECOND AMENDMENT


<image removed>

by
Ken Mondschein

You may not have been aware of this, kids, but words have magical powers. We're not talking about ordinary, run-of-the-mill words here like "please" and "thank you" and "bukkake," but extra-special words like "gun" and "semiautomatic" and "Second Amendment." Mention these words, and, like a bad Stephen King movie starring a St. Bernard, ordinarily civilized people start foaming at the mouth.
Take, for example, the recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of California to uphold that state's ban on "assault rifles," which (to simplify the matter beyond all recognition) are defined as semiautomatic weapons that hold more than 10 bullets per magazine. This means that if you pull the trigger on one of these guns and fire off one bullet, the gun will, for your killing convenience, put another bullet in the chamber for you, ready to fire—and then repeat the procedure until you run out of bullets! Modern technology truly is wonderful isn't it?
Apparently, not everyone thinks so. Much like those filthy hippies who think we should do filthy hippie things like recycling instead of just cutting down more trees, the California Ninth doesn't think we should be allowed to use modern conveniences like assault rifles. Once the judge handed down his decision, patriotic defenders of our right to own high-powered machines of destruction like assault rifles and SUVs and McDonald's coffee and Barbara Streisand albums began comparing him to the Nazis—and rightfully so, since the Nazis were noted for their enthusiasm in taking guns away from people and giving them to other people who used them to shoot Jews. We look forward to Jerry Bruckheimer's execution any day now.
"But without my assault weapons, how will I hunt those flak-jacket wearing deer?" asked a good American armed with the latest deer-destruction hardware and a 6-pack of Coors. "The Second Amendment gives the people the right to own weapons to protect themselves against the government!" e-mailed another patriot from the security of his Nevada bunker. "My loaded handgun that I kept hidden in the cookie jar killed my baby!" replied a distraught mother, whose dirty filthy long-haired hippie dead baby probably shot itself just to get her to change her mind about gun control. "Guns don't kill people, corporations do!" shouted another filthy hippie from a passing Volvo. "Get your hands off my MAC-10, you damn dirty apes!" mumbled Charlton Heston, wandering, disoriented, along Ventura Boulevard. You get the idea.
Obviously, we can't all be right about what the Second Amendment means. Let's try to solve the problem by going back to grade school and diagramming the sentence, "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." What the heck do all these big words mean?
The first part of the sentence is, "A well-regulated militia." Simple enough. This tells us that what we're discussing is a militia, or a part-time civilian military organization like the Marine Corps Reserve or the Knights of Columbus. Note the compound adjective "well-regulated." This implies that the militia is subject to the rule of law, that is, military discipline—some sort of structure of officers and enlisted men with penalties for disobeying orders, something that Billy Joe and his buddies shooting their AR-15s at woodchucks most certainly do not have, unless you count the influence of Captain Morgan.
The second part of the sentence is "being necessary to the security of a free state." This is what we grammar Nazis call a "subordinate clause." This particular subordinate clause sets up a conditional sort of situation, saying that what comes next depends on something having happened before: "Bobby, because he picked up his toys, was entitled to dessert." "Barbara, because she was a very naughty girl, received a thorough spanking." Even John Ashcroft can explain what the word "security" means, so the other important word for us to direct our attention to in our little subordinate clause is the word "state." A "state" is a territory and its occupants organized under a recognized government—that is, not Ted Nugent, not your Counterstrike clan, and not a bunch of guys in camouflage hiding out in a bunker with enough cases of Bud Light to last the Apocalypse. So, what we're clearly talking about is a militia set up to keep the state, that is, the government, safe.
The third part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," gets kind of complicated once you understand the history behind the thing. "Right," "people," and even "keep" and "bear" aren't that difficult words, and "arms" means "weapons," like "swords" and "knives" and "whack-a-mole mallets" and, of course, "guns." Of course, it's the "guns" part that makes this difficult.

At the risk of stating the obvious, we no longer live in a society where the ordinary individual has a reason to carry around the latest military hardware. In the eighteenth century, the most sophisticated piece of personal armament was the Ferguson breech-loading flintlock, of which only about 200 were ever made. Most people had muzzle-loading smoothbore muskets. Though the top-of-the-line civilian weapon, the Kentucky long rifle handmade by Pennsylvania craftsmen, differed considerably from a mass-produced British military musket, the difference wasn't so great that one had a decided advantage over the other. It certainly wasn't as great as, say, the difference between a deer-hunting rifle and a shoulder-fired antitank rocket.
Plainly, things have changed considerably between the eighteenth century and the twenty-first. In those days, rather than a standing army, we had amateur militias (like the minutemen) that provided their own weapons—and, despite the fact the citizen-soldier was a much-vaunted ideal of the Roman Republic that was revived in the Renaissance by Machiavelli, the American militias got their asses kicked in set-piece battles until Von Steuben taught them disciplined drill. (Machiavelli's Florentine militia got its ass kicked by Spanish professionals, too.) Today, rather than having citizen-militias as we did in the early years of the Republic, we have a very modern and very professional military that makes the idea of amateur armed resistance ludicrous. Heck, if we relied on citizen militias today, Canada could take us over.
However, what the Second Amendment, a relic of the early Republic, undeniably says is that, because national security depends on a well-organized militia, people have the right to own weapons.
Funny how one little clause on a 200-year-old piece of paper can cause so much trouble. The thing is, the Constitution is just that: A 200-year-old piece of paper with words on it—words written by people, like the Bible or the script to the pilot episode of Family Ties. It's no more holy or infallible than the latest issue of Cosmopolitan or the Nicean Creed. The Founding Fathers weren't divinely inspired geniuses; they smelled bad in Philadelphia summers and shit in chamberpots and fucked their slaves just like everyone else did. Putting libertarian black-helicopter-conspiracy theories in their aristocratic, plantation-owning honky mouths, or assuming that they wanted the American people to have the capability of overthrowing the government that they had spent a long, hot summer putting together, borders on the ludicrous (especially considering how they quickly put down the first challenge to the Federal government, Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts.) Therefore, defending gun ownership while wearing an NRA pin and a bracelet saying "WWJD" ("What Would Jefferson Do?") is worse than illogical; it's ignorant.
Since the Second Amendment is just words, all the constitutional scholars in the world sitting around trying to apply its antiquated terminology to our modern world is like a bunch of well-armed rabbis trying to interpret the precedent of God's smiting Onan for spilling his seed to modern techniques of in-vitro fertilization, or the Catholic Church disallowing birth control based on something Thomas Aquinas wrote. The Constitution ain't perfect, and it's had amendments repealed before—just look at Prohibition.
So what are we going to do?
It seems that we have two choices. We can either literally do what the Second Amendment says and establish Swiss-style well-regulated militias and allow the people who join them to have all the damn machine guns they want—and face military discipline if their weapons are misused—or amend the Constitution to either do away with the Second Amendment or make it more relevant to our modern world.
Obviously, we can't do away with guns in America. The first and most obvious reason is that since we poisoned all the wolves, there remain an awful lot of deer in the woodlands and on the highways of America that desperately need to die. Also, besides the fact that this ain't Merrie Olde England and people in rural areas actually have to defend themselves against things like bears and mountain lions and wild pigs and Marlon Brando, I also believe people have a right to defend themselves and their property from human predators, as well. (Unfortunately, they don't seem to have the right not to be sued afterwards.) Furthermore, many people, who are undoubtedly somewhat insane but who are entitled to their opinions, find shooting guns to be fun. (We, personally, hate loud noises and prefer the whisper of steel on a fencing strip.) In any case, there is no reason people shouldn't be able to own lever-action, small-magazine rifles, shotguns, and even (well-regulated, registered, and controlled) handguns.
But should the right to own them be in there with our right to free speech and the right of women to vote? Nuh-uh.
What we need is a sane and non-dogmatic way of looking at guns in America—and we need to recognize that owning a firearm may be, like driving a car, a privilege and a responsibility, but it is not, and should not be, a right.
Late addendum: Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that Waco shows you what happens if you try to "resist" the government, guns aren't the problem so far as the crime rate goes. Thats more a social and economic, and even a geographical, issue. And calling us liberal pinko tree huggers ain't gonna help with anything.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Believe it or not....guns are part of American culture. America's founding fathers believed that the only true way to prevent a government from falling into totalitarianism is if the leaders are under a constant threat of revolution and revolt. It states specifically in the Declaration of Independance that the people always have the right to alter or abolish their government.

Thought this might amuse you :-)

quote:

Fun with the
SECOND AMENDMENT


<image removed>

by
Ken Mondschein

You may not have been aware of this, kids, but words have magical powers. We're not talking about ordinary, run-of-the-mill words here like "please" and "thank you" and "bukkake," but extra-special words like "gun" and "semiautomatic" and "Second Amendment." Mention these words, and, like a bad Stephen King movie starring a St. Bernard, ordinarily civilized people start foaming at the mouth.
Take, for example, the recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of California to uphold that state's ban on "assault rifles," which (to simplify the matter beyond all recognition) are defined as semiautomatic weapons that hold more than 10 bullets per magazine. This means that if you pull the trigger on one of these guns and fire off one bullet, the gun will, for your killing convenience, put another bullet in the chamber for you, ready to fire—and then repeat the procedure until you run out of bullets! Modern technology truly is wonderful isn't it?
Apparently, not everyone thinks so. Much like those filthy hippies who think we should do filthy hippie things like recycling instead of just cutting down more trees, the California Ninth doesn't think we should be allowed to use modern conveniences like assault rifles. Once the judge handed down his decision, patriotic defenders of our right to own high-powered machines of destruction like assault rifles and SUVs and McDonald's coffee and Barbara Streisand albums began comparing him to the Nazis—and rightfully so, since the Nazis were noted for their enthusiasm in taking guns away from people and giving them to other people who used them to shoot Jews. We look forward to Jerry Bruckheimer's execution any day now.
"But without my assault weapons, how will I hunt those flak-jacket wearing deer?" asked a good American armed with the latest deer-destruction hardware and a 6-pack of Coors. "The Second Amendment gives the people the right to own weapons to protect themselves against the government!" e-mailed another patriot from the security of his Nevada bunker. "My loaded handgun that I kept hidden in the cookie jar killed my baby!" replied a distraught mother, whose dirty filthy long-haired hippie dead baby probably shot itself just to get her to change her mind about gun control. "Guns don't kill people, corporations do!" shouted another filthy hippie from a passing Volvo. "Get your hands off my MAC-10, you damn dirty apes!" mumbled Charlton Heston, wandering, disoriented, along Ventura Boulevard. You get the idea.
Obviously, we can't all be right about what the Second Amendment means. Let's try to solve the problem by going back to grade school and diagramming the sentence, "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." What the heck do all these big words mean?
The first part of the sentence is, "A well-regulated militia." Simple enough. This tells us that what we're discussing is a militia, or a part-time civilian military organization like the Marine Corps Reserve or the Knights of Columbus. Note the compound adjective "well-regulated." This implies that the militia is subject to the rule of law, that is, military discipline—some sort of structure of officers and enlisted men with penalties for disobeying orders, something that Billy Joe and his buddies shooting their AR-15s at woodchucks most certainly do not have, unless you count the influence of Captain Morgan.
The second part of the sentence is "being necessary to the security of a free state." This is what we grammar Nazis call a "subordinate clause." This particular subordinate clause sets up a conditional sort of situation, saying that what comes next depends on something having happened before: "Bobby, because he picked up his toys, was entitled to dessert." "Barbara, because she was a very naughty girl, received a thorough spanking." Even John Ashcroft can explain what the word "security" means, so the other important word for us to direct our attention to in our little subordinate clause is the word "state." A "state" is a territory and its occupants organized under a recognized government—that is, not Ted Nugent, not your Counterstrike clan, and not a bunch of guys in camouflage hiding out in a bunker with enough cases of Bud Light to last the Apocalypse. So, what we're clearly talking about is a militia set up to keep the state, that is, the government, safe.
The third part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," gets kind of complicated once you understand the history behind the thing. "Right," "people," and even "keep" and "bear" aren't that difficult words, and "arms" means "weapons," like "swords" and "knives" and "whack-a-mole mallets" and, of course, "guns." Of course, it's the "guns" part that makes this difficult.

At the risk of stating the obvious, we no longer live in a society where the ordinary individual has a reason to carry around the latest military hardware. In the eighteenth century, the most sophisticated piece of personal armament was the Ferguson breech-loading flintlock, of which only about 200 were ever made. Most people had muzzle-loading smoothbore muskets. Though the top-of-the-line civilian weapon, the Kentucky long rifle handmade by Pennsylvania craftsmen, differed considerably from a mass-produced British military musket, the difference wasn't so great that one had a decided advantage over the other. It certainly wasn't as great as, say, the difference between a deer-hunting rifle and a shoulder-fired antitank rocket.
Plainly, things have changed considerably between the eighteenth century and the twenty-first. In those days, rather than a standing army, we had amateur militias (like the minutemen) that provided their own weapons—and, despite the fact the citizen-soldier was a much-vaunted ideal of the Roman Republic that was revived in the Renaissance by Machiavelli, the American militias got their asses kicked in set-piece battles until Von Steuben taught them disciplined drill. (Machiavelli's Florentine militia got its ass kicked by Spanish professionals, too.) Today, rather than having citizen-militias as we did in the early years of the Republic, we have a very modern and very professional military that makes the idea of amateur armed resistance ludicrous. Heck, if we relied on citizen militias today, Canada could take us over.
However, what the Second Amendment, a relic of the early Republic, undeniably says is that, because national security depends on a well-organized militia, people have the right to own weapons.
Funny how one little clause on a 200-year-old piece of paper can cause so much trouble. The thing is, the Constitution is just that: A 200-year-old piece of paper with words on it—words written by people, like the Bible or the script to the pilot episode of Family Ties. It's no more holy or infallible than the latest issue of Cosmopolitan or the Nicean Creed. The Founding Fathers weren't divinely inspired geniuses; they smelled bad in Philadelphia summers and shit in chamberpots and fucked their slaves just like everyone else did. Putting libertarian black-helicopter-conspiracy theories in their aristocratic, plantation-owning honky mouths, or assuming that they wanted the American people to have the capability of overthrowing the government that they had spent a long, hot summer putting together, borders on the ludicrous (especially considering how they quickly put down the first challenge to the Federal government, Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts.) Therefore, defending gun ownership while wearing an NRA pin and a bracelet saying "WWJD" ("What Would Jefferson Do?") is worse than illogical; it's ignorant.
Since the Second Amendment is just words, all the constitutional scholars in the world sitting around trying to apply its antiquated terminology to our modern world is like a bunch of well-armed rabbis trying to interpret the precedent of God's smiting Onan for spilling his seed to modern techniques of in-vitro fertilization, or the Catholic Church disallowing birth control based on something Thomas Aquinas wrote. The Constitution ain't perfect, and it's had amendments repealed before—just look at Prohibition.
So what are we going to do?
It seems that we have two choices. We can either literally do what the Second Amendment says and establish Swiss-style well-regulated militias and allow the people who join them to have all the damn machine guns they want—and face military discipline if their weapons are misused—or amend the Constitution to either do away with the Second Amendment or make it more relevant to our modern world.
Obviously, we can't do away with guns in America. The first and most obvious reason is that since we poisoned all the wolves, there remain an awful lot of deer in the woodlands and on the highways of America that desperately need to die. Also, besides the fact that this ain't Merrie Olde England and people in rural areas actually have to defend themselves against things like bears and mountain lions and wild pigs and Marlon Brando, I also believe people have a right to defend themselves and their property from human predators, as well. (Unfortunately, they don't seem to have the right not to be sued afterwards.) Furthermore, many people, who are undoubtedly somewhat insane but who are entitled to their opinions, find shooting guns to be fun. (We, personally, hate loud noises and prefer the whisper of steel on a fencing strip.) In any case, there is no reason people shouldn't be able to own lever-action, small-magazine rifles, shotguns, and even (well-regulated, registered, and controlled) handguns.
But should the right to own them be in there with our right to free speech and the right of women to vote? Nuh-uh.
What we need is a sane and non-dogmatic way of looking at guns in America—and we need to recognize that owning a firearm may be, like driving a car, a privilege and a responsibility, but it is not, and should not be, a right.
Late addendum: Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that Waco shows you what happens if you try to "resist" the government, guns aren't the problem so far as the crime rate goes. Thats more a social and economic, and even a geographical, issue. And calling us liberal pinko tree huggers ain't gonna help with anything.