Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Effective Gun Control in England


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Effective Gun Control in England Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 12:07:57 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 161
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 12:26:16 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		NG, I haven't lost any rights.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 162
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 12:27:26 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to MyMasterStephen)
Profile   Post #: 163
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 12:55:02 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by dcnovice -- 3/25/2007 12:56:57 PM >

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 164
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 12:59:58 PM   
MyMasterStephen


Posts: 219
Joined: 8/16/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 165
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 1:19:04 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to MyMasterStephen)
Profile   Post #: 166
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 1:31:05 PM   
MstrDouglas


Posts: 75
Joined: 11/15/2005
Status: offline 		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

< Message edited by MstrDouglas -- 3/25/2007 1:32:02 PM >

(in reply to MyMasterStephen)
Profile   Post #: 167
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 2:38:39 PM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 3/25/2007 2:51:44 PM >

(in reply to MstrDouglas)
Profile   Post #: 168
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 2:40:02 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 3/25/2007 2:42:37 PM >

(in reply to MyMasterStephen)
Profile   Post #: 169
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 3:15:26 PM   
petdave


Posts: 2479
Status: offline
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.





(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 170
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 3:22:52 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline 		I was thinking of that too!

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to petdave)
Profile   Post #: 171
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 4:45:44 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 172
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 5:08:29 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
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.




_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to petdave)
Profile   Post #: 173
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 5:18:11 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 174
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 5:19:56 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 175
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 5:21:57 PM   
MyMasterStephen


Posts: 219
Joined: 8/16/2005
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by MyMasterStephen -- 3/25/2007 5:25:04 PM >

(in reply to MstrDouglas)
Profile   Post #: 176
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 5:22:27 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to MyMasterStephen)
Profile   Post #: 177
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 5:25:08 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 178
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 5:30:37 PM   
MyMasterStephen


Posts: 219
Joined: 8/16/2005
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 179
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 3/25/2007 5:36:51 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		There's no religion involved. Our Creator. It doesn't say WHAT, or WHO that creator might be.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to MyMasterStephen)
Profile   Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Effective Gun Control in England Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.092