The Coming Dark Times

[morph4me]

This is your media showing these people, they may not be the norm but they certainly exist don't they? When your politicians ( your representatives) are interviewed on our media they become very defensive about guns and guns laws giving the impression you either live in such a wild place you need weapons with you all the time or you just love the things. Not helpful. Of course we take everything with a pinch of salt, but even the reliable balanced media get a little hysterical when guns are mentioned.

I think that it's pretty well established that, given a choice, the press will go for a sensational story, or slant a story to create the biggest buzz. They aren't going to report on normal, legal, gun owners, because it's not sensational. They are going to find extremists and whack jobs, because that makes it a more sensational story. Is it true? Yes. Is it accurate? No. How do we show we're doing a balanced story? We find the extremists and whack jobs on both sides.

 

[Kreth]

As far as I know no other country is interested in having a say in your laws.

Just the UN...

 

[Grenadier]

This is your media showing these people, they may not be the norm but they certainly exist don't they?

As always, I strongly recommend, to not "fall for the hype."

Law-abiding firearms owners are pretty much as their name states: law-abiding. They cannot have felonies on their record, and in fact, cannot have certain serious misdemeanors on their records. They cannot be drug users, nor can they be habitual drunkards, according to the questions asked on the ATF 4473 form.

In fact, if you were to take a group of law-abiding firearms owners, and compare them to a group of people who don't own firearms, you're going to see that the first group will have a much lower rate of crimes amongst them comapred to the second group.

The media tries to constantly show what grabs the headlines, and these are exceptionally rare incidents.

If one were to believe everything they see on TV, then one would think that Israel is always full of explosions and attacks (it's not; it's actually a nice place to visit). That same person would also believe that (if watching the 1992 LA Riots) Americans are overweight looters and arsonists, or that they like to assault truck drivers who try to help others, and smash bricks on their heads (the Damian Williams / Reginald Denny incident, also related to 1992 LA).

I'll simply suggest this: take what the media gives you with several grains of salt.

When your politicians ( your representatives) are interviewed on our media they become very defensive about guns and guns laws giving the impression you either live in such a wild place you need weapons with you all the time or you just love the things. Not helpful.

In the United States, people have a right to defend themselves, using the best lawfully-available means possible. For the most part, we don't believe in punishing those who lawfully defend themselves when it comes to threats against their well-being.

Instead, for the most part, we prefer to punish the criminal, instead of punishing the law-abiding. In several states, criminals are not allowed to sue those who defended against them, if the defense was justified.

What someone lawfully chooses to do with a lawfully-owned firearm, is his business, and his alone. It's the same thing with a car, a hammer, or a welding torch. They're all merely tools, and as long as someone isn't misusing them, it's really nobody's business. Whether they want to use their firearms for self defense, hunting, target shooting, competition, or even just as a nice display piece, is their business, and their's alone.

 

[Tez3]

Just the UN...

And America has no interest in any other countries laws?

As I said I always take the media with a pinch of salt but recently we have been seeing more of American political pundits coming on our screens telling us that we need to be armed too especially in the light of "the war on terror".

 

[mrhnau]

As I said I always take the media with a pinch of salt but recently we have been seeing more of American political pundits coming on our screens telling us that we need to be armed too especially in the light of "the war on terror".

You are not by chance advocating the opposite? In light of terrorism and other threats that Americans should disarm? What good does disarming law abiding citizens do? Think criminals/terrorists will be giving up their arms? Thats what black markets are for. Guns still exist, just their trade is not as visible. Has gun violence gone to zero in the UK? Have violent crimes dramatically decreased yet?

If I were a criminal and knew a house was not armed, I'd probably not think twice about robbing it. However, if I knew a gun did exist in a house or at least had serious doubt about the presence of a gun, I'd likely think otherwise, or at least make sure noone was home. Either way, the occupant of the house is safer.

 

[Tez3]

You are not by chance advocating the opposite? In light of terrorism and other threats that Americans should disarm? What good does disarming law abiding citizens do? Think criminals/terrorists will be giving up their arms? Thats what black markets are for. Guns still exist, just their trade is not as visible. Has gun violence gone to zero in the UK? Have violent crimes dramatically decreased yet?

If I were a criminal and knew a house was not armed, I'd probably not think twice about robbing it. However, if I knew a gun did exist in a house or at least had serious doubt about the presence of a gun, I'd likely think otherwise, or at least make sure noone was home. Either way, the occupant of the house is safer.

Actually I'm not advocating anything, I was pointing out how your gun owners are perceived by those outside America which may or may not bother you but it bothers us when we have American politicians coming onto our own networks telling us that we need to follow you in allowing people to be armed. We are more than aware of the crime figures in our cities though I live in an area where we don't lock our doors and people can walk round the streets at any time in no danger other than being butted by sheep. You are saying your way is right for you, fine but our way is right for us. To have Bush and his cronies etc telling us we are going to be bombed out of existance unless we arm up is ridiculous. We've lived with being bombed now for more than 30 years. We have a great many Muslims living in the UK and to advocate arming the populace would cause tensions, roits and deaths.Our crime figures don't warrent it and the war on terror certainly doesn't.

 

[Sukerkin]

Always a perennial favourite this topic .

It's still interesting to hear peoples viewpoints on it tho', especially as some have been posited in a particularly cogent fashion here :tup:.

I think that the subject can be rendered down to a few relatively simple statements/factlets, from which people draw their opinions depending on which of the elements they find resonates most strongly with their prior held views.

1) Disarming a population certainly makes it easier to oppress but 'domestic' oppression is seldom going to take a blatantly militarist form.

2) Firearm related deaths in America are alarmingly numerous.

-closely tied to-

3a) Gun ownership in America is relatively common.

3b) It is psychologically 'easier' to shoot someone than stab them, especially when emotions are running hot.

4) Tight gun regulation in the UK was very effective right up until the time that an outright ban on ownership was introduced (the article linked to in a previous post was quite right in that gun-crime has soared since the ban).

5) Owning a weapon that you cannot use effectively is worse than not having a weapon at all (which is where I think the notion comes from that a gun-toting (untrained) citizen will just have it taken off him and be shot by his own pistol).

6a) Laws, in general terms, only serve to moderate the behaviour of those who are already intrinsically law abiding.

6b) Americans are citizens of their country with codified rights and priviledges. Britons are subjects of the Crown and altho' we have an illusion of 'rights and priviledges' in essence we do what we're told .

7) An arms race between the law enforcers and the law breakers only increases the level of danger to the average member of the population.

My own opinions on the matter are that we used to have it just about right in England where ownership of (most types of) firearms required Police oversight but once licensed you were largely free to pursue the aspect of gun-ownership that appealed to you e.g. small game hunting, target/clay(skeet) shooting and so forth.

I also think (and I hope Tez3 will back me up on this) that it is generally held, even by the Police, that an armed police-force is a very bad idea. Armed Response Units are a seperate issue as they are specifically tasked with a defined role and are made up of carefully selected and trained officers (despite what media coverage if certain high profile 'mistakes' would have us believe).

Whilst I understand and actually agree (at the logical level) with many of the points the pro-gun lobbyists in the 'States put forward, I cannot but help think that the 'record' speaks for itself and that, for some reason, the legislative and sociological balance it 'off'. I don't have a 'cure' for why it is that widespread gun ownership causes so much grief in America and can only point out the obvious that it can't go on as it is (not in the pressure-cooker urban areas anyway).

Anyhow, spent too much time tapping this in and I'd better get back to work ... "Breaks over lads, back on yer heads!" .

 

[Tez3]

I am a member of the only police force in the UK that is armed, the MOD police. I also live in a area where shotguns are kept routinely for game shooting (and the occasional poacher lol), I worked with service people who by the nature of their job are armed.The farmers and country people do not have the same attitude to weapons (though they may admire a fine matched set of Purdeys) as we perceive as Americans having, who you must admit are very defensive about the whole thing, it's a very emotive subject. Of course we question the rights and wrongs of gun owning, we are keen not make mistakes. If we wonder about the ownership of guns in America it does not mean we are criticising the American people and Constitution! it means we are wondering about the widespread gun ownership !

 

[Kreth]

If we wonder about the ownership of guns in America it does not mean we are criticising the American people and Constitution! it means we are wondering about the widespread gun ownership !

Are you guys still bitter over that whole Revolutionary War thing?

 

[Tez3]

Are you guys still bitter over that whole Revolutionary War thing?

LOL! I'm only a first generation Brit, my family were Dutch, all but a few died in the camps during the war.
the revolutionary War doesn't come up in British politics.... the battle of Bannockburn is still being fought out by the Scots and English. The Welsh and Cornish want independance, as for N Ireland well you know the situation there! Incidentally money from America has stopped pouring in to the Province since 7/11 interestingly.

 

[Kreth]

Incidentally money from America has stopped pouring in to the Province since 7/11 interestingly.

Well, we needed to save our money for Big Gulps. :lol:

 

[Lisa]

Well, we needed to save our money for Big Gulps. :lol:

:lfao:

Damn you Kreth! You beat me to it! :lfao:

 

[TonyMac]

The original post sounded like a frightened little boy crying wolf.

 

[kelly keltner]

The dependent clause of the statement, namely "A well-regulated militia, being necessary..." is not part of the independent clause of the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The independent clause exists solely on its own, and the inclusion of the dependent clause is stating but one reason why the right of the people (nowhere does it say "the right of the militia") to keep and bear arms must be preserved.

Furthermore, the Second Amendment recognizes that such a right of the people to keep and bear arms, had already existed, and merely protects what was already in existence.




The lawful ownership of firearms had nothing to do with the vast majority of those tragedies.

Simply put, people will find ways to kill other people, regardless of what items are outlawed. After all, look at Jamaica, where firearms ownership is all but forbidden to its populace, yet they have one of the highest rates of violent crime in the entire world.

It's a cultural issue, not an item ownership issue.
Furthermore, we are a free society, period. In order to exist as a free society, we grant liberties that place a significant amount of trust in the average citizen.

Here is a specific definition from U.S. code.
Any thoughts, ideas ,questions and comments.
kk



A littl 10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/05

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A - General Military Law

PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied

males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section

313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a

declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States

and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the

National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard

and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of

the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the

Naval Militia.

-SOURCE-

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),

Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,

Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

-MISC1-

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

1956 ACT

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at

section Large)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

311(a) 32:1 (less last 19 words). June 3, 1916, ch. 134,

Sec. 57, 39 Stat. 197;

June 28, 1947, ch. 162,

Sec. 7 (as applicable to

Sec. 57 of the Act of

June 3, 1916, ch. 134),

61 Stat. 192.

311(b)

32:1 (last 19 words).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In subsection (a), the words "who have made a declaration of

intention" are substituted for the words "who have or shall have

declared their intention". The words "at least 17 years of age and

* * * under 45 years of age" are substituted for the words "who

shall be more than seventeen years of age and * * * not more than

forty-five years of age". The words "except as provided in section

313 of title 32" are substituted for the words "except as

hereinafter provided", to make explicit the exception as to maximum

age.

In subsection (b), the words "The organized militia, which

consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia" are

substituted for the words "the National Guard, the Naval Militia",

since the National Guard and the Naval Militia constitute the

organized militia.

1958 ACT

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at

section Large)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

311(a) 32 App.:1. July 30, 1956, ch. 789,

Sec. 1, 70 Stat. 729.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The words "appointed as . . . under section 4 of this title" are

omitted as surplusage.

AMENDMENTS

1993 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103-160 substituted "members" for

"commissioned officers".

1958 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85-861 included female citizens of

the United States who are commissioned officers of the National

Guard.

 

[Cruentus]

Where it all starts to look silly to me is when people start talking about needing guns in case they have to resist an overly oppressive government. That was all well and good in 1776, but really the government of today is far too powerful to beat that way. Mr. Elmore is dedicated, intelligent and well armed, but a SEAL team would end him and his six best, toughest, most heavily armed friends. The people have lost that arms race and there's no winning it back.

It's not that the armed citizen would need the abilities to defeat a SEAL team or the military. It is that they would have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, whether ours became that way or if we were invaded.

No, groups of private citizens will not have superior firepower in comparison to a military. But, by having the right to own and carry, they do have just enough firepower to prevent complete control. It is easy for a military to go in to a country and blow stuff up; it is very difficult for a military to FORCE people to comply and go to work and be productive and obey the government if citizens are armed and have the ability to fight back.

Just look at the trouble that we have in Iraq, and why it is a long war.

 

[Cruentus]

Weapons are obviously needed if you are invaded by a foreign force but tryanny has a habit of sneaking up on you. The more likely scenario is that would have your rights under law eroded away but it would be done in such a way that you would agree with this action, ie "we need everyone to do this because we need to beat the terrorists, anyone that disagrees is unpatriotic" so you would end up with curfews, holding people in detention camps, banning unions,neighbours and family would spy on each other, torture would be allowed in police interrogations and hundreds of other "laws" put in place and before you know it you are in Nazi Germany/Iraq/Zimbabwe/ Soviet Russia and so on. Your freedom would be gone and you wouldn't realise it until it was too late. Over dramatic? Have a think about it!

I agree with you here. This is why some of us are adament about maintainiing our civil liberties; not just to bear arms, but other liberties as well. Some of us don't want to see our great country fall prey to a slippery slope into tyranny.

 

[Rich Parsons]

It's not that the armed citizen would need the abilities to defeat a SEAL team or the military. It is that they would have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, whether ours became that way or if we were invaded.

No, groups of private citizens will not have superior firepower in comparison to a military. But, by having the right to own and carry, they do have just enough firepower to prevent complete control. It is easy for a military to go in to a country and blow stuff up; it is very difficult for a military to FORCE people to comply and go to work and be productive and obey the government if citizens are armed and have the ability to fight back.

Just look at the trouble that we have in Iraq, and why it is a long war.

This is true, just look at Afghanistan and Iraq. Superior weapons and home made bombs and cheap guns still kill just as easily.

NOTE: I do not like Phil. We disagree on lots of things, such as tactics of getting information our. So, by no means is this support of Phil. This is just me saying that people should have the right to own a gun.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Actually I'm not advocating anything, I was pointing out how your gun owners are perceived by those outside America which may or may not bother you but it bothers us when we have American politicians coming onto our own networks telling us that we need to follow you in allowing people to be armed.

THIS I was totally unaware of and do not agree with ( I may have a different idea of what the citizen's rights concerning firearms should be, but none the less, it remains, after all, *YOUR* Island.)

 

[Cruentus]

I am a member of the only police force in the UK that is armed, the MOD police. I also live in a area where shotguns are kept routinely for game shooting (and the occasional poacher lol), I worked with service people who by the nature of their job are armed.The farmers and country people do not have the same attitude to weapons (though they may admire a fine matched set of Purdeys) as we perceive as Americans having, who you must admit are very defensive about the whole thing, it's a very emotive subject. Of course we question the rights and wrongs of gun owning, we are keen not make mistakes. If we wonder about the ownership of guns in America it does not mean we are criticising the American people and Constitution! it means we are wondering about the widespread gun ownership !

What we have is 2 issues here.

#1. Is the right to bear arms an unalienable right, because it equates with the right to self-defense which is an unalienable right, and therefore should be preserved?

#2. When does one country reserve the rights to tell another what to do?

The case of #1 is independent of subjective beliefs, independent of what one country feels is "best for them" over another, and is incidentally independent of what the constitution says. This is a philisophical issue, not necessarily a legal one. Arguing case law, legal differences between two countries, or the semantics of the 2nd amendment accomplishes nothing in addressing this core philisophical issue. Philisophically, we believe that everyone should have the freedom and right to persue life, liberty, and happiness. Most people in all civilized countries would agree with this core value. So then the question becomes, is the right of "self-defense" needed to persue life, liberty, and happiness? I would say yes. Is the right to bear arms, then, needed to preserve the right of self-defense? I would argue also, yes.

This brings us to #2. The answer isn't "never," otherwise all countries should dismantle all dilpomatic relations and the UN, and never interfer with one another. So, lets say if a leader is killing and torturing his own people; I think that other countries do reserve the rights to express an opinion about that, and even use force if nessicary to stop attrocity.

But, how far does that right go in the case of the right to "bear arms"? Well, I would have to say that I don't think that we have the right to use any kind of force or cohersion to persuade countries to preserve that right. I do believe it is a civil liberties violation to take the right to bear arms away, but I don't believe that it is grossly in violation of human rights and safety. Some people on the extreme side of the issue would actually disagree with me and say that it is a huge violation of human rights and safety; I am just not willing to go that far.

So, I don' think that "Americans" have the right to try to coherse "Europeans" of whatever ilk to change their laws if it is not a gross human rights violation. But, I do think that we reserve the rights to our opinions, going back to that 1st phisophical question, as do Europeans reserve their rights to their opinions as well. That is what supports good discussions...

Paul

 

[Blotan Hunka]

When did any of our politicians do that?