If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I can't believe the news today
I can't close my eyes and make it go away
How long, how long must we sing this song
How long, how long
I wouldnt say the article is meant to ignore the experiences of other countries, MOK - instead it focuses on the American reality and un reality we are seeing. Theres a huge contradiction thats manifested in the article, that is to say the idea of individuality at all costs as a mark of an American. With that individuality comes the need to maintain it - ie the womens movement, racial pride/sexual pride and the overall sentiment of the pursuit of happiness. The paradox comes about in saying individuality and self esteem is good, but never at the expense of self preservation of ones life in times of threat.
In essence, the author is affirming the right to life - I wont address the God issue because I feel its irrelevant. On the paradox tip though - if we have a right to express and affirm our individuality, why can we not protect the lifespring the individuality comes from?
I cant get into the arguments about the 2nd amendment or NRA philosophies etc - its all been extensively covered. I will however justify my own possession of firearms. 3 days ago, I was asleep when my girlfriend woke me up saying she heard a crash in the living room. I listened and could hear voices and the sound of feet walking upon broken glass. My immediate response was to grab my 12 GA shotgun sitting under the bed - I walked to the doorframe and still in the cover of darkness racked a shell into the chamber - anyone whos seen a movie knows how frightening that sound can be. Racking the weapon also activated a small SWAT light on the pump - revealing 2 kids, 1 with a knife, 1 with a crowbar.
Thankfully, I scared the 2 idiots so bad I didnt have to open fire. MOK, you'll probably call me a vigillante, some more will call me a barbarian but I dont care - the threat was very real. The police said if I fired, Id have been justified as they were armed - I held them until the police arrived (a full 13 minutes later enough time to have killed both of us) It turns out these 2 pillars of the community had felony assault warrants out on them for armed robbery and criminal histories that included grand theft auto, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, cocaine / heroin possession and numerous other charges. Oh and they were in ages of 17 and 19 respectively.
Am I still wrong? Had you the means, what would you have done ? waited the 13 minutes and prayed the police showed up? Sorry guys, I love England, have been there several times (one semester at Oxford where I came to love OI!) but strongly disagree with you on the whole issue of firearms.
Incidentally, if the role of government is to protect minority/individual rights then making the police not responsible for defending the citizenry is a load of rubbish.
Where you're wrong is in your second paragraph. In the US, the Supreme Court had stated the police has no obligation to prevent a crime from being committed. This is to keep the Government from taken to court for not keeping someone from getting killed by criminals. The United States has areas where a home owner may not have neighbors for miles. The closest police station my be hours away. In fact, it takes the police three hours to get to my mother's house! Her best bet is to call the fire department if she needs help. They take only 25 minutes to get to her home. Her closest neighbor is over a mile and a half from her house. She doesn't want to move into the city because she enjoys the peace and quiet the countryside has to offer, and the lower cost of living that country living offers. Well, there are the deer that roam on her property too, but that’s another story. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
The Government in the US does not have the role of protecting the individual rights of the citizen. If it was, we wouldn’t have as many lawyers as we do. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
[This message has been edited by 63DH8 (edited 06-08-2001).]
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
This is going to sound like double talk, but I'll try to explain. The Constitution of the United States protects the Rights of the citizens of the United States. The Founding Fathers recognized the Government is a source of power that could be corrupted by those in power, and be used to oppress the citizens. They wrote the Constitution in a manner to create a series of checks and balances in the Government to keep the Government from oppressing the people. By giving the people the ability and Right to defend themselves against the Government, the Founding Fathers also made the Government somewhat ineffective. The Government has to bend to the will of the people, not the other way around. In other words, the Government of the US serves the people, not the other way around.
Originally, the Federal Government was created to conduct transaction between the States and between other nations and the US. The United States is plural, not singular. We needed an entity to insure smooth transactions between the States, and to bind us as one in nation to nation affairs.
In criminal affairs, the citizens pass laws to keep the criminals from misbehaving. The Judicial department of the Government enforces these laws and remove criminals from the public. This sounds like the Government protecting the people, but it’s only the Government doing the bidding of the people. In most cases, if the individual is faced with a deadly threat, the citizen can legally defend them self with deadly force. If an individual witnesses another citizen is faced with a deadly threat, that witness can legally defend the citizen with deadly force. The fact of the matter is if the citizen is armed with a firearm, he or she is obligated to defend those around him or her if a deadly threat arises. Not so the police; By law, the police is not obligated to prevent a crime. The private citizen is safe from getting sued if he does not render assistance, but without the Supreme Court’s decision stating the police is not obligated to prevent crimes, they would have been open to lawsuits.
I’m not going to say this is a perfect situation, nor that other countries Government is less perfect. Societies and cultures are different. What’s right for one society is not always right for another society. Governments are formed by the viewpoints of the society they are based in. To call the workings of one Government stupid when it works for that society is simply… well… stupid. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Translated: In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags.
Actually, the presumption that the Second Amendment is there to provide a counterweight to government tyranny is relatively new and also fallacious. The Second Amendment is one of the few that states its reasoning: to provide for a well-armed and trained militia, which is in the interests of the nation's defence.
To suggest that the civilian population of the USA could out-gun the military if they were truly intent on being dictatorial is ridiculous. I don't see that many Abrams tanks, nerve gasses, nukes, bombers, warships or the like in private hands.
Since when have the decisions of the Supreme Court been 100 per cent correct and true? The judges are humans (I think!) and are fallible like the rest of us. The decisions of the court may be legally binding but they are not necessarily right.
If you read the Constitutional papers and the debates surrounding the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution, you will see the entire first ten Amendments are part of the checks and balance to the power of the Government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Bill of Rights, refused to allow the Constitution to be passed until there were the means for the people to keep the Government from becoming a tyranny. However, because the history of the United States is only 200 some odd year old, and only a youth in comparison to Europe, I’ll give you your statement that it’s relatively new. However, it’s far from fallacious.
The decisions of the Supreme Court has never been considered 100 per cent correct and true. However, until it’s been overturned by a higher court or themselves, the law holds weight despite not being necessarily right.
The phrase is "well regulated" and does not mean "having many or proper regulations" but rather "being well supplied and functional".
The militia is not the government or any government sponsored armies, it is the able bodied adults of the country.
While it is true that armed civilians do not seem like a threat to an army - remember that there is no value to bombing out residential and business centers if you want to enslave a country (as Hitler did to France and Poland). Rather - the point is to control people - what they think and say, where they go, etc.
The first thing that needs to be done is for the population to be disarmed. That would mean the government has to know who has the guns (thats why we are so opposed to registration) and they would have to go door to door raiding homes to collect the weapons.
The intimidation factor would be immense - but it would be an extremely dangerous undertaking - even if only 5% of the people resisted, it would cost many, many soldiers.
That is assuming that entire cities do not mobilize and act as a larger militia. There are many medium to small western cities where you could expect almost thwo whole town to offer armed resistance.
Personally, I have already decided that I would resist. It is my duty to my country to resist people who would defile the concept of liberty.
Ultimately, the core of this US vs UK debate on firearms comes town to foundational assumptions about liberty, government and rights.
The US says rights pre-exist all forms of government and cannot be taken away (except by tyrany). The US recognizes the idea that many people, once in government, will try to "help" the people by slowly trading security for liberty. Many people feel that for pragmatic reasons, this is completely reasonable. If you read the founding fathers, they understood that individual rights must always come ahead of government interests and efficiency.
That is why we have the right to be secure against warrantless searches, the right to not testify against ourselves, the right to a grand jury and the right to be armed.
All of those things get in the way of an efficient government but they uphold the rights of the individual as inviolate and of primary concern.
Molon Labe
and take the bullets first....
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Translated: In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags.
government be damned! I think there is no threat from the government here or abroad.
I actually own a gun and it's a great stress relief and an enjoyable hobby to fire off some cartridges at a target. It only takes a second place to smacking around my Ho's when I am angry.
So there, nothing. The "Right to Life" means the RIGHT to CONTROL your own life. By killing yourself you are determining your own FATE. There must be something about the concept of Free Will that's difficult for British Subjects to understand.
Yes, because the defacto role the government plays is to increase it's own power and influence as a living bureacracy. The true role as protector has been transposed with populist services provider. Therefore the State cannot be responsible for any individual's welfare, as that would make the government accountable directly to the people. Instead it is responsible for implimentation of general policies that are supposed to work for "most" people, and the ones that die on the margins of society as a result of over regulation...well, they wont make the difference in the next election, so they are considered "irrelavent".
Sean - please don't use rasist terms on these boards. And if you weren't aware that it's a racist term, you are now.
Cheers,
Dom
If you look at some of the posts made by your fellow countrymen you'll find that it is them who come across this way. I have said a couple of times that it is best to agree to disagree. That gun control is a different matter in both countries and how we have it now suits both our contries fine. The Americans on this board refuse to accept that. The American way is the only right way, or so some of the Americans on here seem to think.
Because were all British we can never be right coz we're all brainwashed. So whatever we believe we have been told to believe by our government and therefore we are not free. This is coz we don't have guns and can't keep dictator Tony Blair in line.
- Skive <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/nogood.gif">
Forward ever
Backward never
Skive'n'Dive - My country is located not far from yours. However, I'll happily be associated with Americans rather than English. They may not spell the same way, but they seem to give natives a chance to choose their culture instead of imposing it on the end of a bayonet.
Guns, maybe it the right thing for Americans to have one to defend their loved ones with. Americans (US types), for the most part, don’t really trust their Government. The entire US society was based on not trusting the Government. The Founding Fathers encouraged not trusting the Government! Is this right? For the United States society it is! Is it right for other society? Maybe not. In other societies, this distrust of the Government may result in actions that may result in anarchy. People react in different way as their society dictates. Once the people start showing open distrust of their Government, their Government may feel it has to do something about it. In the US, the Government takes a certain amount of this distrust as the norm. I seriously doubt the German Government would take the open show of distrust that some Americans display towards to their Government in a like manner.
There is a difference between saying what is wrong, and what is wrong for you or a group of people. Slaughtering whole towns or villages is wrong. That transcends societies. Not allowing the means to defend yourself with deadly force is society specific. The average American citizen feels this is wrong. The British feel they have the police to defend them, so they don’t have to worry about defending themselves (I’m sure there are other reasons, but this is the only one that comes to my mind at the moment).
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Translated: In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags.
[This message has been edited by 63DH8 (edited 07-08-2001).]
Ah, excellent! So, since the US government cannot, by law, turn oppressive and use the military to enforce that oppression, there's no need for the citizens to be armed to prevent it doing something it can't do.
On the other hand, if it can turn nasty then the military can be used against the citizenry and will utterly out-gun them. Yes, it would be bloody messy, but it would be an eventual victory for the military. The only thing standing in the way is the collective and individual consciences of the military.
Well, not quite. The Government can oppress the citizens by passing restrictive laws and taxes. The police can enforce those laws. The military can’t do anything to either side because the Government commands them, and they are not supposed to do anything against the civilians. Here’s a problem area, there are those in command in the military who do not know of the Constitutional Amendment that forbids the us of the military against the citizens. Should the military try to take action against the citizens, the military is outnumbered by several hundreds of thousand to one. The average citizen doesn’t really have to worry about tanks because tanks are killed easily in cities. They are too limited by their size and design for use in cities. It’s too easy for someone to drop flammable liquid on a tank and take it out. This leaves only the ground troops to take the cities. They’re going to have to fight people who are familiar with the buildings and streets. This puts the troops at a distinct disadvantage. There are too many people in the US who owns firearms for the military to win a guerrilla war. It’ll be worse than what is in Ireland because there are too many former military who would be too willing to fight the Government, as well as too many firearms in the hands of the citizens. Though the military may take ten civilians out to one soldier, the soldiers are still outnumbered. With what little I know, I can turn a wine bottle into a shaped charge that’ll go through three inches of armor. That’s thicker than what’s on the top and bottom of a tank. Need explosives? Urea acid from piss can be used, or you can take the crystals that’s found under cow manure and mix that with a couple of other chemicals. There’s more to it than this, but I’m not going to post it. There’s too much hate and mischief going on in the world today for me to want to contribute to it.
All it would take if for the Government to use force on one town or city, and the people will revolt. Like I stated elsewhere, the people in the US are naturally suspicious of the Government.
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Translated: In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags.
Since the English do use the military against their own citizens, aren't you inferring that they do have a reason to be armed against the tyrants? Surely the Provos will be pleased to know that you support their position. How effective has the English Army been in Northern Ireland?
Let's see, there are between 60-80 million gun owners, with 250 million guns. There are 2 million US service men in total, and most do not carry a gun (never mind the military's recent bullet shortages due to the "Peace dividend" of lowered spending ). Now you do the math, and tell me how long your bloody military victory would take, and then tell me if you think the average U.S. soldier would want to go against us "Gun Happy" civilans.
The only thing standing in the way of totalitarianism is the People, who are smart enough to distrust their government, thinking of it like a big vicious dog and therefore keeping it on a short leash.
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 08-08-2001).]
If one were to actually read the writing of Jefferson, Adams, Mason, Franklin, etc., then one would understand and comprehend that the MILITIA is composed of free men, free agents, whom individually choose the courses of their individual lives. The militia was not a "National Guard", an active duty army, nor any other formally composed military unit, but rather the collection of individual men.
It ASTONISHES me that the island which spawned William Wallace has forgotten the tennents of FREEDOM... but then, I am reminded that that island ALSO spawned what Wallace devoted his life in conflict to.
B. Franklin wrote that freedom carries with it RESPONSIBILITY. Freedom without responsibility is ANARCHY, and leads to SLAVERY, because the bleating sheep will clamor for SOMEONE to save them from the evil wolves. Franklin wrote that if you will bear NOT the responsibility for the maintenance of your OWN freedom, then you deserve it NOT! That is on an INDIVIDUAL BASIS. If the thief in the night comes to steal from you ANYTHING, including your life, and you will NOT defend it, then you are UNWORTHY of it!
A FREE man makes his own individual choice as to be a combatant, or a victim: NO free man is EVER victimized by an outlaw. NEVER! A person who refuses to defend themself has chosen his OWN fate, and subjugates himself to the whim of the lawless element, but has NOT been victimized by other than his OWN lack of worth.
It does NOT place an individual on a higher moral plain to abdicate his worth to another, but DOES signify either his unworthiness to be recognized as a free man, or his individual decision to become a chattel of another. Whether by ignorance, or by cowardice, he has become a slave.
MANY here give credence to George Orwell's "Animal Farm"... "save us, save us..." A free man saves himself!
Think out a LOGICAL responce as to why violent crime is on the decline in the United States, where the number of concealed carry permits are on the rapid rise, and why violent crime is rapidly rising in place like Australia where guns are being outlawed and confiscated? Where is the lowest violent crime rate in the world? Try Switzerland, where able bodied adults are REQUIRED to possess and qualify with their "assault weapons".
The lawless are cowards, and prey upon the weak. Would YOU break into a home knowing that you would face an AK-47, or choose a home where the cowards within would NOT defend themselves??? So difficult a choice...
If within your moral cowardice you choose to subjugate yourself to another, to BE a subject rather than a CITIZEN, then cower within your self-imposed cage, and live the life which you have chosen for yourself. Any attempt to enslave ME, however, will bring about your edification as to the consequences of your ill thought-out agenda. As a FREE MAN, you have nothing to fear from me, UNTIL your attempt to steal from me my freedom, my ability to make the choices of my life.
Concord and Lexington, the attempt by the British forces to steal the arms of the colonies, WERE the catalyst which brought about a war, and
63DH8 is american.
oh and please learn to quote properly doubro, it would make your posts a lot easier to follow. when youre making a reply, click "UBB Code is ON" to the left of the box and read up on quotes.
that will be all.
Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.
Just a heads-up, I’m an American; A US Citizen. My father earned his citizenship by joining the US Navy when he was 17 years old, remaining in for 32 years, and fighting in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Back in 95, he died of cancer of the type that is normally linked to agent orange. My mother earned her citizenship by giving up her Japanese citizenship, and getting naturalized. I helped her with her citizenship by learning about US history with her, and questioning her. My mother does NOT consider herself as a Japanese, but as an American. She will and has jap-slapped people for calling her a hyphenated American (Japanese-American). She is proud to be, and I quote, "An American!" My father was the same way; He was very proud to have EARNED his citizenship. You really wouldn’t want to be jap-slapped by a 6 foot, 220lb Dane. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
Your point is taken. WE, the US,EARNED our freedom. WE fought for it. Just like people will not always take your advice, no matter how valuable it is, it is still your advice based on your experience. Americans tend to be faster on the draw than people in other countries. About the only other people I have seen who are as quick are people from countries that also had to fight for their freedoms. Sometimes it’s better to have an injured friend than be dead yourself. Let’s face it, the US has a violent history that’s closer to present history than most First World Nations. It’s still in our blood. I know I don’t like being told what I will and will not do even if it’s for my own good!
There are societies that trust their Government. In our eyes, they may appear to be blind, or as some Americans call them, "Sheepel". You’re not going to change their viewpoints by force just by their very nature. It’s best that they experience what they must to follow their due course. Until then, you’ll be looked upon as a lunatic. Besides, there is nothing more cherished than what is earned. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif"> Maybe this is why the Average US citizen cherishes his ability to defend himself and his family from others, to include the Government.
I DO have access to firearms. I live in the Pacific Northwestern part of the United States. In fact, if I wish, and if I process the correct paperwork, I can own a fully automatic weapon like a M-60 Machinegun or M-2 .50 caliber machinegun. As for the British and other countries, the people trust their Government enough where they were willing to give up their rights to ownership of arms. Is it right or wrong? Only time will tell. Historically, societies that give up the right to defend themselves with arms end up getting oppressed. Only history will tell if this will hold true for them too.
<However, if both parties understand each other’s societies, concessions can be made. In most societies, a caress across the cheek is a gesture of affection. ... Is that right or wrong? It’s right in their culture. It’s not right for me though! >
Quick! What’s the cover of the engine on a car called? Not the same as the US, eh? Not quite the same culture Amigo! Even in the US, there are different culture! In the state I live (not the state of confusion, though I wonder at times <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif"> ), there are different cultures. The cities live in a different culture than in farmlands in the east side of the mountains. The towns that live through logging have another culture and mindset. Same with the towns that survive through fishing. Each have a varying degree of liberalism and conservatism. Some are more self sufficient than the people in other areas of the state. Do you think the people in the city give a serious rip about how rainfall the state has in comparison to the farmers in the eastern side of the mountains? The largest difference (between the different cultures across the world) is the US culture was founded by the overthrow of what the Founding Fathers considered a tyrannical rule. We were founded by the force of arms, and continue to live with the force of arms in the citizen’s hand. The British were not founded this way. They were founded by the protection of the Kings, Barons, and knights. That, in itself, produces a different culture.
<Guns, maybe it the right thing for Americans to have one to defend their loved ones with. Americans (US types), for the most part, don’t really trust their Government. The entire US society was based on not trusting the Government. The Founding Fathers encouraged not trusting the Government!>
Why was the Declaration of Independence written in the first place? Because the Founding Fathers wanted to break away from England. Read the Federalist Papers. These were written before the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I’ve not only read the Declaration of Independence, but studied the history of it.
<In other societies, this distrust of the Government may result in actions that may result in anarchy.>
Good example is every violent overthrow of a Government. Elections are peaceful overthrow of the Government. If you don’t trust your representative, you get rid of him through your vote; You overthrow his office and replace him through election.
What happens if the Government refuses to have elections?
<People react in different way as their society dictates. Once the people start showing open distrust of their Government, their Government may feel it has to do something about it.>
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. On the other hand, they Government may bend to the will of the people to prevent being overthrown through vote or violence. This happens in the US quite often (bend to the will of the people).
<In the US, the Government takes a certain amount of this distrust as the norm. I seriously doubt the German Government would take the open show of distrust that some Americans display towards to their Government in a like manner. >
Yes, we do, don’t we. Most people consider Germans "free" in their Country. Did you know they must apply to move from one town to another town or city, then, if that application is accepted, they have to register in their new town, and unregister in their old town? Not exactly what a US citizen would consider "free", is it? That’s the norm for them. It’s a degree of freedom they’ll tolerate, or lack of.
<There is a difference between saying what is wrong, and what is wrong for you or a group of people.> Yes, and the BATF if they can find an excuse. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif"> If you have a domestic violence charge against you, you can’t legally purchase a firearm. As for myself denying anyone firearms, nope. Not me! More the merrier! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
<Slaughtering whole towns or villages is wrong. That transcends societies. Not allowing the means to defend yourself with deadly force is society specific.>
Defend yourself with deadly force in some countries will result in getting tossed in jail. I was almost jailed in British Columbia for stopping a jewelry robber in the Surrey Mall. I was told I was going to be brought up on assault charges for physically stopping a man from breaking into a jewelry case and stealing the jewelry in that case. Unless I want to be brought on charges, I have to stay out of Surrey, BC.
<The average American citizen feels this is wrong. The British feel they have the police to defend them,>
I’m not speaking for every Brit. I’m talking about them as a society because, as a society, they passed a law to restrict firearms ownership.
< so they don’t have to worry about defending themselves >
You’re right! I know I love my family enough where I wouldn’t think twice about using deadly force to protect them. Normally, I carry a .45 cal 1911 and a Makarov when I go anywhere. So far, I have never felt the need to use them on anyone. I consider it cheap insurance to protect my family. Just like insurance, you won’t know how much you’ll need it until you need it. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif"> However, the British, as a society, do not feel the same way as you and I. Listen to their rhetoric; They will state that is for purpose for the police. It’s their reality.
[This message has been edited by 63DH8 (edited 08-08-2001).]
Spoilsport! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Translated: In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags.