Archangel M
Senior Master
[yt]T_QjEL0uUgo[/yt]
Preach it Ted
- Thread starter Archangel M
- Start date
Malleus
Orange Belt
Wow. We're quite different.
I'm sure you know all the arguments for and against gun ownership, so I won't get into it. Suffice to say I've come down on the opposite side of the argument.
That said, if guns were legal here I'd be very tempted to get one. There's something fascinating about them.
I'm sure you know all the arguments for and against gun ownership, so I won't get into it. Suffice to say I've come down on the opposite side of the argument.
That said, if guns were legal here I'd be very tempted to get one. There's something fascinating about them.
OP
OP
Archangel M
Senior Master
Everybody is entitled to their opinion.
But...and take this as I intend it..and its not as an insult. When it comes to what Ted is talking about here, I could care less about what a non-American thinks about our 2nd Amendment. My predecessors left Europe and became American for a reason.
But...and take this as I intend it..and its not as an insult. When it comes to what Ted is talking about here, I could care less about what a non-American thinks about our 2nd Amendment. My predecessors left Europe and became American for a reason.
Malleus
Orange Belt
No offense taken.
I'd like to hear what that reason was though. Ted's explanation was a little simplistic for my tastes.
OP
OP
Archangel M
Senior Master
Our Constitution.
America was founded on the premise that Gvt doesn't grant or bestow "rights" on us. Anything that Gvt. does is an infringement on our rights that we "allow" only after due process. Thats the fact, regardless of the efforts of our current idiots in office who are attempting to dismantle the whole thing.
America was founded on the premise that Gvt doesn't grant or bestow "rights" on us. Anything that Gvt. does is an infringement on our rights that we "allow" only after due process. Thats the fact, regardless of the efforts of our current idiots in office who are attempting to dismantle the whole thing.
Malleus
Orange Belt
Actually I was asking to your views as to why you thought your ancestors left Europe, but that may be derailing the thread and in any case, what you've quoted was interesting enough. Cheers.
Still the sour grapes over 1776?
Really, I would have thought that after we later saved your humble (and shrinking) empire in 1918 and again in 1943 there should be some measure of gratitude if not outright awed worship......
Couldn't resist. :lol:
Best not to go there when talking to a historian - or maybe it is? :lol:
So that'll be:
- The French wresting control of one of our treacherous colonies from our hands whilst we were fighting them, the Dutch and the Portuguese
- The 1914 - 1918 war to protect America from the Anarchists and to which they lent their grudging support nearly three years late.
- The 1939 - 1945 war to protect America from the Fascists ... who then proceeded to take over by stealth later anyway. To which conflict the aforementioned colony sold their grudging support nearly three years late, after taking all the British technological and engineering advances as a bribe and giving nothing in return (see Tizard expedition for details).
Note that I pondered for quite a while about posting this, wondering how it would be received. In the end, I concluded that there is still enough humour left in the global gene pool to appreciate that perspectives of history can give rise to some fairly irresolvable conundrums.
So that'll be:
- The French wresting control of one of our treacherous colonies from our hands whilst we were fighting them, the Dutch and the Portuguese
- The 1914 - 1918 war to protect America from the Anarchists and to which they lent their grudging support nearly three years late.
- The 1939 - 1945 war to protect America from the Fascists ... who then proceeded to take over by stealth later anyway. To which conflict the aforementioned colony sold their grudging support nearly three years late, after taking all the British technological and engineering advances as a bribe and giving nothing in return (see Tizard expedition for details).
Note that I pondered for quite a while about posting this, wondering how it would be received. In the end, I concluded that there is still enough humour left in the global gene pool to appreciate that perspectives of history can give rise to some fairly irresolvable conundrums.
Last edited:
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Not an enigma at all, when you consider that what we (collectively) say and what we do are two very different things. We are nothing if not self-flatterers.
Well, now you've come to the crux of the problem: Britain cannot get along with anyone. Wars everywheres!
It was only when FDR told Churchill that we'd let the Huns have you if there was a third war that you opted for more or less quiet decline....
Yet, still we need our guns in case you regress and come back....
To this day we teach our kids to shoot (and to eat their vegetables) with the thread that the English may be under the bed...
Blade96
Senior Master
With all due respect, I don't see how you can disagree with anything Nugent said in that video. Yes, we are quite different.
Malleus
Orange Belt
No, I think I can agree with the points Ted raised in the video, just not how he said it, nor his overly simplistic view of things. True, given the choice between having an innocent woman use a handgun to stop and kill an attacker intent on murdering her, or having things play out the way they did, one would have to side with the victim. Same with all the other examples he raised.
Of course, for that to be possible the woman would have to be armed the time. To defend against the possibility of an unforseen attack, everyone everywhere would have to be armed, at all times. I think that would cause huge problems, and with gun ownership so easy, it makes it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns (through simply buying them legally or through stealing them), and easier for crimes of passion to have a nastier ending.
A gun is a ridiculously powerful tool. I'm not sure I'd be happy with everyone having access to them. Even with the most responsible, level headed owner, accidents can and will happen. And I'd imagine not everyone is that responsible.
But this is besides the point: your second amendment gives you the right to own guns. I'm just wondering if it's a good thing.
Gun control is a controversial issue to say the least, even here in the U.S. I can understand why some folks do not like guns...I think that is their right, to not like guns. However, I'd like to add some extra commentary if I may.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/index.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html
Reports going back to 1995 can be found here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius
The two states with the lowest per capita violent crime rate....meaning, the fewest violent crimes per 100,000 people, are Vermont and New Hampshire.
Two states with some of the least restrictive gun laws are....
...Vermont and New Hampshire.
If lesser gun control was the sole reason for violent crime, then we would be among the more violent states in the union. We're not. If you were to ask my police chief what concerns him more, he would say that he is less concerned about guns than he is about machetes.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76017
They have been the weapon of choice for a few crimes in the area, including the most insidious how-can-it-happen-here murder of Kenpoist Jamie Cates' mother. The bangers nearly murdered Jamie, she was brave enough to call 911 with her throat cut.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81351
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/holl...0-308/court-documents-detail-murder-plot.html
Taking a firearms safety course from a qualified instructor offers a more realistic depiction of what a gun can and cannot do.
But I also think American gun owners are portrayed unrealistically as these talisman-loving beings that value their guns over anything else, including the lives of others. A police officer or armed guard that shoots a violent perpetrator in the line of duty does not get a slap on the back and a drink bought for him at the end of the day, he gets an investigation and a mountain of paperwork to complete.
In October 2009, Boston Special Officer Paul Langone was about town on personal business when he stopped by Mass. General Hospital, and heard screams from behind a closed door. He opened the door to find Dr. Astrid Desrosiers being literally stabbed to death by her patient. He shot the assailant, saving the doctor's life, although she was critically wounded. Even in what looks like an obvious case of defending an innocent victim, the Suffolk County DA just cleared Officer Langone of any charges last week.....a 5 month wait.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/r...ails_shooter_cleared_of_wrongdoing_in_attack/
Yet, how often is a person like Officer Langone portrayed in the media as the picture of an American gun owner? Is a corporate businesswoman ever portrayed as a gun owner in a way that is not some James Bond-like caricature? What about an older gun owner? Are they ever portrayed as being something other than a recluse in a flannel shirt living out in the woods in a hunting cabin?
Personally I don't disparage you or anyone else not in the States for not being warm to the 2nd Amendment, or for not liking guns in general. That is your right, and your opinion. I respect that. But keep in mind that law-abiding gun owners may not look the way you imagine them, and may not be as bad or as dangerous as you think.
It is notlaw-abiding people that cause problems. Some of the strongest supporters of 2nd Amendment rights and legal gun ownership in the U.S. are police officers. Unfortunately, media reports on crime never, ever draw the distinction between when a gun used in a crime was being carried legally or illegally. Much more often than not it is the latter.
That has not proven to be the case. The most comprehensive report on violent crime in the U.S. that I know of is the FBI Uniform Crime Report. This is a study that is done every year. The 2009 findings are preliminary here are the links to 2005 - 2008:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/index.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html
Reports going back to 1995 can be found here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius
The two states with the lowest per capita violent crime rate....meaning, the fewest violent crimes per 100,000 people, are Vermont and New Hampshire.
Two states with some of the least restrictive gun laws are....
...Vermont and New Hampshire.
If lesser gun control was the sole reason for violent crime, then we would be among the more violent states in the union. We're not. If you were to ask my police chief what concerns him more, he would say that he is less concerned about guns than he is about machetes.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76017
They have been the weapon of choice for a few crimes in the area, including the most insidious how-can-it-happen-here murder of Kenpoist Jamie Cates' mother. The bangers nearly murdered Jamie, she was brave enough to call 911 with her throat cut.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81351
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/holl...0-308/court-documents-detail-murder-plot.html
Taking a firearms safety course from a qualified instructor offers a more realistic depiction of what a gun can and cannot do.
Everyone doesn't have access to them, at least among law-abiding citizens in the States.
Hate to harp on the subject again, but taking a firearms safety course from a qualified instructor might show otherwise. Regardless of what you might hear in the media, guns don't accidentally go off, nor do they accidentally shoot people while they are being cleaned. There are no accidents with firearms, only negligence.
Its natural to wonder
But I also think American gun owners are portrayed unrealistically as these talisman-loving beings that value their guns over anything else, including the lives of others. A police officer or armed guard that shoots a violent perpetrator in the line of duty does not get a slap on the back and a drink bought for him at the end of the day, he gets an investigation and a mountain of paperwork to complete. In October 2009, Boston Special Officer Paul Langone was about town on personal business when he stopped by Mass. General Hospital, and heard screams from behind a closed door. He opened the door to find Dr. Astrid Desrosiers being literally stabbed to death by her patient. He shot the assailant, saving the doctor's life, although she was critically wounded. Even in what looks like an obvious case of defending an innocent victim, the Suffolk County DA just cleared Officer Langone of any charges last week.....a 5 month wait.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/r...ails_shooter_cleared_of_wrongdoing_in_attack/
Yet, how often is a person like Officer Langone portrayed in the media as the picture of an American gun owner? Is a corporate businesswoman ever portrayed as a gun owner in a way that is not some James Bond-like caricature? What about an older gun owner? Are they ever portrayed as being something other than a recluse in a flannel shirt living out in the woods in a hunting cabin?
Personally I don't disparage you or anyone else not in the States for not being warm to the 2nd Amendment, or for not liking guns in general. That is your right, and your opinion. I respect that. But keep in mind that law-abiding gun owners may not look the way you imagine them, and may not be as bad or as dangerous as you think.
OP
OP
Archangel M
Senior Master
How so. It's the left-wing that supports socialistic or communistic government distributed and controlled "rights" in this country.
I think his viewpoint was simplistic in this video as well. He also espouses vigilante justice in it, which I do not; it's a populist viewpoint that sells well currently. Ted Nugent is an intelligent man and can express himself better than that.
That was actually the goal of some of our founders of our nation:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson.
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry.
I think it is important to note here that there are nearly more guns in the USA than there are people (200 million guns, 300 million people).
Consider that our demographics with regard to gun ownership are radically different than most places on the planet. The US has and has had a culture of gun ownership going back to before our founding. We've nearly as many guns as television sets, for a visual representation.
It is already easy for criminals to get guns, and there really isn't any way to make it harder for them to do so. When they don't buy them via 'straw man' purchases, they buy them in face-to-face personal transactions or they steal them; later buying and selling them from each others. Then of course there are many guns purchased outside the USA and smuggled in.
Consider the drug problem in the USA; most hard drugs are thoroughly illegal, heavily regulated, and we do our best to keep them off the streets. Nevertheless, anyone who wants cocaine, crack, heroin or whatever else can buy it in nearly every city in the USA, day or night, anytime they want to. If the laws against drugs don't keep them out of the hands of those who want them, then laws against guns are equally unlikely to keep them from criminal possession.
So in answer to your statement, there is little that can be done to keep guns from the hands of criminals anyway. What remains is to arm citizens as a counter-balance.
In the USA, we have made attempts to put restrictions on owning guns at the federal and some state/local levels. Primarily, we forbid gun ownership to those who have been convicted of felonies, are mentally disturbed, are fleeing from justice, are drug addicts, and those convicted of domestic abuse. Some states and cities add additional restrictions, such as cities like Chicago which forbid private gun ownership and states like Illinois which require a Firearm Owner's Identity Card and gun registrations (those laws are being challenged for constitutionality currently).
However, and this is important; even the best people will do the wrong thing. So some formerly law-abiding citizen will pick up a gun and do something inappropriate with it. That's a given. The question is this: in a free society, do we accept that we cannot prevent every crime and protect the overall liberty of the people, or do we attempt to protect the citizens against themselves even if we have to restrict liberty to do so? The history of the USA has tended towards freedom, even at the expense of additional danger to our citizens from ourselves.
In the history of the USA, we have tended to believe that the job of the government is to protect and defend freedom, not people. That's important, because it affects every decision made with regard to our laws. Yes, we want to protect people too, but the primary focus is on defending liberty.
And yes, guns are very powerful. That would be the point. No one should be evenly matched against someone who wants to hurt them. There is no 'fair' when defending one's own life or the lives of one's family. Overkill is a good thing in such situations.
Minor point; the 2nd Amendment gives us nothing. The Constitution declares that we have all rights, every right you can imagine, even those which have never been exercised yet. You name it, we have that right from our Creator; specifically NOT from the government. What the Bill of Rights does is enumerate certain of those rights and FORBID the federal government (and by extension, the states) from infringing on them. The 2nd Amendment does not give me the right to own guns, it tells the federal government they cannot interfere with my right to own guns. It's a subtle but important distinction.
Is it a good thing? Well, I think so. I've thought, from time to time, about what it would be like to emigrate to another country to live and work. And I have to say; the idea of leaving my guns behind has stopped me everytime. Just can't do it. It's part of our culture, and it's become part of me. Owning guns is part of what it means to be an American (or at least having the choice to do so).
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
It's taken me a while but I finally understood how to interpret the 2nd amendment. The founders could have prevented a lot of discussion though, by phrasing it in a less convoluted way.
That said, I understand that gun ownership is a cultural thing to Americans. However, for all practical purposes, owning a gun or not does not make any difference when it comes to living in a society (ignoring the SD aspect for a moment).
Yes, they could have; and they knew that. The specific wording was debated furiously back and forth. The end result was a compromise, satisfying to nearly none. It is only in recent decades that scholarship has satisfied the judiciary in proving the intent of the framers when they wrote it. Most anti-gun people have abandoned arguments that the framers did not intend for the people themselves to be armed, and not only for the establishment of a militia.
Yes, although one might argue that living in a society in which private gun ownership is a vigorously-defended right does not obligate one to own a gun; it merely allows one to make the choice. Societies which do not protect such rights cannot offer their citizens this choice.
Even if I owned no guns by choice, I'd still prefer to live in a society in which they were legal for law-abiding citizens to own if they so chose.
Put another way, I do not want to march in the streets and engage in hateful racist speech. However, knowing that the right to free speech is vigorously defended regardless of how loathsome it is means my freedoms are preserved against future decisions I might make about speaking my mind with regard to anything at all. So even unexercised, having the right is important. That, to me, makes a difference.
ROFLKLITA!
Oh so very true in the first paragraph - I think it's because we were bullied a lot before 1066
.So very wise in your last paragraph too
. After all, we are building aircraft carriers again ... well, really little ones anyway :lol:.
