RE: Effective Gun Control in England (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Sinergy -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 12:07:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:


Who is the danger? The government? Foreign invaders? the bloke down the street?


Doesn't matter. The point is that when Danger Comes, you're prepared.

IF the PASSENGERS on the airplanes hijacked on 9/11 were armed, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Heck, even after being systematically disarmed by the FAA, Pax on Flt93 STILL took the bastards down.



I am not sure arming passengers on planes is preparing for the worst.  Correct me if I am wrong, but assuming they let passengers bring weapons on a plane, and potential terrorists are passengers, wouldn't everybody have weapons?

Far as I can tell, if everybody has guns and there is a shootout at 36,000 feet, we still have a plane crashed with lots of dead people on it.

The only difference is how the worst plays out when things go from bad to worse.

Sinergy




popeye1250 -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 12:26:16 PM)

NG, I haven't lost any rights.




popeye1250 -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 12:27:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MyMasterStephen

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Had 6 million Jews been armed in the 1930's history would read differently.
The right to keep and bare arms is one of our most important rights!
It guarantees all of our other rights.



Bullshit.  It guarantees nothing of the sort.


It doesn't? Explain why you think that way.




dcnovice -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 12:55:02 PM)

quote:

With a quick Glance I see the phrase, "the People" is used in the Preamble to the Constiution, as well as the I,II IV,IX,and X amendments.  Surley you don't think the right to free speech applies only to gov chartered orginizations( some equivilant of a militia), or are collective rights.  Do you?


With a not-so-quick glance, I see that the phrase "the people" is not used in conjunction with free speech in the First Amendment but rather with the right "peaceably to assemble," which would be a group activity.

The Fourth Amendment is the one in which "the people" appears most to be used in an individual sense, since the amendment goes on to talk about "persons, houses, papers, and effects," which are held individually.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments don't specify whether they're talking about "the people" individually or collectively.

Anyone know how the courts have construed the phrase over the years? Interesting question.




MyMasterStephen -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 12:59:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: MyMasterStephen

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Had 6 million Jews been armed in the 1930's history would read differently.
The right to keep and bare arms is one of our most important rights!
It guarantees all of our other rights.



Bullshit.  It guarantees nothing of the sort.


It doesn't? Explain why you think that way.



The state gave you that right.  The state can remove that right.  In Nazi Germany, it was politically correct to persecute the Jews.  Failure to do so could lead to custodial or even capital punishment.  The only thing you are guaranteed is that your rights are controlled by the state.




dcnovice -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 1:19:04 PM)

quote:

The state gave you that right.  The state can remove that right. 


Ah, now we hit a hard-core question of political theory. Does the state truly grant rights or merely recognize and respect (one hopes) those that are granted by God/nature/whatever?




MstrDouglas -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 1:31:05 PM)

Well, here in the US, our Constitution gives us the rights, NOT the state, like elsewhere, including the UK.  That is one of the things our founders wanted gaurenteed, and the Constitution also forbids the state from usurping those rights, governed by controls from the judicial system.  More and more the judicial system is doing away with any laws that have been passed that infringed on those rights.
Edited to add my opinion;
Effective gun control means you are using both hands and hitting what you aim at




seeksfemslave -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 2:38:39 PM)

The US government structure/constitition as formulated in the late 18th century was an attempt to break free from the vicious monarchical (sp) aristocratic religious authoritarian control present in Europe.
Quite right too.

With so much corporate influence in the US something is not quite right.
I dont think you have quite arrived at government by the people for the people.




popeye1250 -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 2:40:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MyMasterStephen

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: MyMasterStephen

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Had 6 million Jews been armed in the 1930's history would read differently.
The right to keep and bare arms is one of our most important rights!
It guarantees all of our other rights.



Bullshit.  It guarantees nothing of the sort.


It doesn't? Explain why you think that way.



The state gave you that right.  The state can remove that right.  In Nazi Germany, it was politically correct to persecute the Jews.  Failure to do so could lead to custodial or even capital punishment.  The only thing you are guaranteed is that your rights are controlled by the state.


Stephen, and which "state" is that?
Our Founding Fathers *TOOK* the right, it wasn't "granted" to them by England.
There is a big difference between "Citizens" and "Subjects".
"The State" has nothing to "give" me!
No money, no rights, no privilidges.
All those things belong to The People.
We simply "allow" the state to administer OUR affairs.




petdave -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 3:15:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
Ah, now we hit a hard-core question of political theory. Does the state truly grant rights or merely recognize and respect (one hopes) those that are granted by God/nature/whatever?


quote:


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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


[:)]





dcnovice -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 3:22:52 PM)

I was thinking of that too! [:)]




luckydog1 -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 4:45:44 PM)

With a not-so-quick glance, I see that the phrase "the people" is not used in conjunction with free speech in the First Amendment but rather with the right "peaceably to assemble," which would be a group activity.   So there is no individual right to free speech?!?!

The Fourth Amendment is the one in which "the people" appears most to be used in an individual sense, since the amendment goes on to talk about "persons, houses, papers, and effects," which are held individually.   Why would the writers use the same phrase to mean 2 completely different things? Remember this was written by lawyers.  

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments don't specify whether they're talking about "the people" individually or collectively.  So you are saying we basically do not have any individual rights?

Anyone know how the courts have construed the phrase over the years? Interesting question.  Exactly what collective rights does the constitution grant?  They all seem to be individual rights to me.
 
The fist use of the  phrase "the People" is in the preamble, and clearly means individuals.  It would seem to me that all following uses of the phrase would have the same meaning as the first, as it is one document.




NorthernGent -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 5:08:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: petdave

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.



In theory, it sounds good. No arguments with the theory.

In terms of the practicalities, the last sentence that I've highlighted below is worth considering:

and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 
Safety and happiness are subjective, fluid and open to propaganda. They are not absolute measures that everyone can stand by, understand and resist any infringement upon them. The government of the day can decide what constitutes happiness and safety and impose these upon the population through constant advertising of their view of safety and happiness (ultimately imposing their value system), thus rendering the population obedient and revolution improbable.

According to some, safety and happiness are achieved through imposing a value system in other parts of the world. I call this tyrannical, others call it the pursuit of democracy and preserving Western values. According to some, happiness is achieved through the market and consumerism. The point is: these are ideas rather than absolutes and the government of the day can generate new ideas of what constitutes and guarantees safety and happiness, and impose them upon the people.

For example, the Patriot Act - it is simply an idea, which many argue is a barrier to happiness, but they have imposed this upon the people.

For example, Iraq, the US government has overstepped the mark, but the people aren't anywhere near overthrowing the government. This is because "happiness" and "safety" are being guaranteed through the market economy and spreading an idea perceived to be superior and perceived to preserve a way of life.

In a nutshell, this is all built on the establishment's projection and ideas of what consitutes and guarantees happiness and safety.






dcnovice -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 5:18:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

With a not-so-quick glance, I see that the phrase "the people" is not used in conjunction with free speech in the First Amendment but rather with the right "peaceably to assemble," which would be a group activity.   So there is no individual right to free speech?!?!


I said nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out that the words "the people" were not used in reference to free speech. The amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

quote:

The Fourth Amendment is the one in which "the people" appears most to be used in an individual sense, since the amendment goes on to talk about "persons, houses, papers, and effects," which are held individually.   Why would the writers use the same phrase to mean 2 completely different things? Remember this was written by lawyers.  


I'd have to look at the document as a whole to see if it varies in its usage of "the people." BTW, I don't know whether James Madison, who's widely credited with writing the Bill of Rights, was a lawyer.

quote:

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments don't specify whether they're talking about "the people" individually or collectively.  So you are saying we basically do not have any individual rights?


Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I simply said that it's not clear from a simple reading how the words "the people" were used. I think one would need to look at the history of how lawmakers and courts have construed them over time.

quote:

Anyone know how the courts have construed the phrase over the years? Interesting question.  Exactly what collective rights does the constitution grant?  They all seem to be individual rights to me.


Thanks for sharing your perspective, but I think the key thing is how experts (scholars, lawmakers, courts) have construed the phrase in its various uses.


quote:

The fist use of the  phrase "the People" is in the preamble, and clearly means individuals.  It would seem to me that all following uses of the phrase would have the same meaning as the first, as it is one document.


It's honestly not clear to me that they're talking about individuals rather than the people as a whole in the preamble. Do you have a source that helped you attain your clarity?




farglebargle -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 5:19:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:


Who is the danger? The government? Foreign invaders? the bloke down the street?


Doesn't matter. The point is that when Danger Comes, you're prepared.

IF the PASSENGERS on the airplanes hijacked on 9/11 were armed, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Heck, even after being systematically disarmed by the FAA, Pax on Flt93 STILL took the bastards down.



I am not sure arming passengers on planes is preparing for the worst. Correct me if I am wrong, but assuming they let passengers bring weapons on a plane, and potential terrorists are passengers, wouldn't everybody have weapons?

Far as I can tell, if everybody has guns and there is a shootout at 36,000 feet, we still have a plane crashed with lots of dead people on it.

The only difference is how the worst plays out when things go from bad to worse.

Sinergy


Doesn't that discount the deterrent effects of being armed? A hijacker wouldn't THINK about trying to take a plane, knowing they'd die before achieving their goal.

IF you're going to die, what's wrong with bringing the hijackers with you?




MyMasterStephen -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 5:21:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstrDouglas

Well, here in the US, our Constitution gives us the rights, NOT the state, like elsewhere, including the UK.  That is one of the things our founders wanted gaurenteed, and the Constitution also forbids the state from usurping those rights, governed by controls from the judicial system.  More and more the judicial system is doing away with any laws that have been passed that infringed on those rights.
Edited to add my opinion;
Effective gun control means you are using both hands and hitting what you aim at



Umm...  Just a moment...

I may be wrong here, but I don't think the Constitution DOES give the right to bear arms.  That right is given by an AMENDMENT to the constitution.  So who made and ratified that amendment?  And what prevents them from unmaking it or unratifying it, or from making a new amendment?

All power is eventually vested in the state.  Hence all rights and all freedoms.




farglebargle -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 5:22:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MyMasterStephen

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: MyMasterStephen

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Had 6 million Jews been armed in the 1930's history would read differently.
The right to keep and bare arms is one of our most important rights!
It guarantees all of our other rights.



Bullshit. It guarantees nothing of the sort.


It doesn't? Explain why you think that way.



The state gave you that right. The state can remove that right. In Nazi Germany, it was politically correct to persecute the Jews. Failure to do so could lead to custodial or even capital punishment. The only thing you are guaranteed is that your rights are controlled by the state.

quote:


The state gave you that right. The state can remove that right. In Nazi Germany, it was politically correct to persecute the Jews. Failure to do so could lead to custodial or even capital punishment. The only thing you are guaranteed is that your rights are controlled by the state.


Go reread the Declaration of Independence, this time paying attention to the little nugget about how right come from Our Creator.





farglebargle -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 5:25:08 PM)

On a general note, The Framers thought LONG AND HARD about EXACTLY what they wanted the Constitution to say.

Do you really wanna go down Clinton Highway, demonstrating your ignorance, discussing what the meaning of the word "People" is?

The framers would conclude that such an ignorant people don't DESERVE Freedom and Liberty. Which pretty much explains how we got to where we are.





MyMasterStephen -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 5:30:37 PM)

quote:




Go reread the Declaration of Independence, this time paying attention to the little nugget about how right come from Our Creator.





Oh dear.  Politics is complicated enough without dragging religion into it.





farglebargle -> RE: Effective Gun Control in England (3/25/2007 5:36:51 PM)

There's no religion involved. Our Creator. It doesn't say WHAT, or WHO that creator might be.





Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625