Gun Control, thread 3? Let's go again, shall we?

[DraconisRex]

StarFighter08:

quote:

---

Reading this shows clearly that it would be much harder to get a gun. That means that less people will have some.

---

So long as they still make iron pipes and firecrackers, I can assure you, I will still have access to a gun. One that is just as deadly as the ones they are trying to "control." As soon as they get the criminals to register their weapons, legal or otherwise, they'll have something to control.

quote:

---

As soon as a criminal knows you have a gun, it becomes a me or you situation. The risk of getting killed is now significantly higher. You better know how to use a gun and actually do use it otherwise you're dead meat.

---

They tell me that a handgun is a defensive weapon. I disagree with that, because its use is quite offensive to whatever it hits... Knowing how to use, clean, and oil a gun I consider to be very important -- at the same time, I'm not as afraid of a Peace Officer as I am a 24-year old who shakes when they hold the weapon... A Peace Officer will wing me, whereas the novice will simply shoot the weapon, and I have no idea where its going to hit. Neither does the criminal, which makes the situation more interesting.

It's simple, really -- if you pull a gun, be prepared to use it.

Back in the Old West, the right to defend property and family was guaranteed by the law. In lawless areas, which means corrupt politicians and criminals running the show, the crime rate was not really that bad -- you don't steal from home, you steal from those that have stuff.

Nowadays, the roles are reversed -- heavily populated areas have staggering crime-rates (crooks killing each other, mostly) and bad political bosses, and suburbs have an excess of crime, since that's where most of the rich reside.

If you were given a choice as an infantryman, which would you rather attack all by yourself -- A tank battalion or a lone soldier on patrol? Criminals aren't stupid, and if they know you have a gun and think you may use it, they will normally leave you alone (unless they see a tactical advantage to the conflict area they have in mind -- that's a problem for the victim, as they weren't paying attention.)

quote:

---

Is there a way a cop can spot if somebody is armed? It's only one step from there to check if the weapon is legally owned.

---

Actually, if they aren't a convicted felon, and are committing no other crime, then the "Gun Control Law" is totally unconstitutional (in the US, of course.)

quote:

---

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

-- From the Second Amendment, US Constitution

---

It doesn't say that the States have the right to change this, nor does it give the Courts the power to impose any laws that defeat its purpose. Any law passed that does so is illegal. Period. It seems the Courts have forgotten terms like "Democracy" and "Freedom." So have many of the State Legislatures.

quote:

---

You haven't seen gun control work because it hasn't been introduced/enforced thoroughly yet. Saying that you don't know if it works but being against trying is not a tenable stance, especially if you're even against hypothetically speaking/inquiring about the effects of gun control.

---

I have a great idea for Gun Control. Give everybody guns. Require that they be trained in both usage and cleaning. Then, the crooks that want to kill each other would get it over with, and the ones that survived would be on Death Roll. Finally, we would have peace, as few would dare to attack anyone if they knew they had a gun. The ones that did would not be missed....

quote:

---

The discussion is not about gun control being constitutional or not. It's about the question if it should be constitutional or not. Since a majority of congress can amend the constitution, the discussion is not completely moot.

---

Congress can do whatever it wants to. Our founding fathers, in their wisdom, gave the Several States the ability to petition for a Constitutional Convention (Article V, I think), and pass whatever laws the people want.

As for Congress making the Amendment to control arms, they will probably be signing their own death warrants, as that is a basic right of Americans. There are too many independent militias that were given rights to exist by the same Amendment you are proposing to change. If the members of Congress act outside the will of The People, may God help them.

quote:

---

I'd also like to add that gun control doesn't mean that nobody should have arms. At least not for me. Being a Swiss militaryman (like half the male population of this country) I have my assault rifle and ammo right here at home and I think that free people should be allowed to own guns. It's just that the restrictions should be tighter IMO, especially if peole without military training can get guns easily.

---

Now I'm confused -- there's a 50% probability that any male you assault in your country will shoot you, yet you're arguing against the right of a free people to defend themselves?!?!?

I will concede that training on both usage and proper maintenance of any gun you own should be required -- but then again, how much training do most people get before they sit down in front of a computer for the first time? Owning a gun is a responsibilty first, and defense second.

In closing -- It makes no difference whether or not laws should exist or not; the only impact is results. Crime rates in both Great Britain and Australia have soared to astronomical levels in the past ten-years, as they make tighter and stricter gun-control laws. Taking the abilty to defend oneself away only increases the probability of a crime.

What do you think of this idea? Instead of convicting our local criminals through the courts, how about simply revoking their citizenship, and sending them away to Great Britain or Australia? At least they should feel right at home.....

[Starfighter08]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

Yes, but criminals can manage just fine without guns, or if they can't black market guns will always be available, but I would probably mess up my hands terribly trying to defend myself with a length of rebar (assuming one was at hand, I certainly don't carry one around).

---

As I said the influx of new guns into the black market are mainly through legally bought guns and thefts of guns. Gun control could reduce both.

quote:

---

Yea, but most criminals think that they can't get caught, that it won't happen to them, otherwise they wouldn't commit crimes, so it's not much of a deterrent. Not nearly so much as the possibility that the victim might pull a gun on them.

---

You think the whole law enforcement apparatus doesn't deterr potential criminals? Obviously it doesn't prevent all crimes, but I'm quite sure that many people who would otherwise be criminals abstain from it, knowing that they could get caught.

quote:

---

Self defense courses take a lot of time and require a lot of work; it's no great surprise that most people don't take them.

---

Let's have a quick fix then and buy a gun. Having a gun doesn't require any training, but then it doesn't make you safer. Using a gun however....

quote:

---

Well, I was more referring to the threat that a person might have a gun; once they do pull it it's another matter entirely.

---

If you just have a gun and don't pull it, then it's useless. A criminal might even use your gun against you in that case.

quote:

---

Sure thing darling, but I guess people who are going to get guns should know about that eh? If someone gets a gun and gets killed because of its then its there own faulty. No amount of training courses will save a bloody fool from himself.

---

In that case a test should prevent such a fool from getting a gun in the first place. Not even to protect him against himself, but to protect those he might accidentally kill or hurt.

quote:

---

And so how do they spot the weapon? If they notice it under cloth or some such that's getting very close to illegal search and seizure. Furthermore, how long does it take to check on something like this? I certainly know that I wouldn't want to be detained by some police officer and have to sit around for an hour or so while they search some hideously long database to see if such and such weapon is on it.

---

How long does it take when the cops check if somebody's driver's licence is ok or whether the car he is driving was reported stolen?

quote:

---

There are innumerable numbers of accidents driving cars, and voting is a major issue that affects us all in a big way (I don't really care about the adoption point so I shan't address it). Guns, on the other hand, very rarely result in accidental deaths and thus arenÔÇÖt in need of any special exam.

---

With guns people don't die only in accidents but are willingly and knowingly killed. It affects everybody in a big way who happens to be present at a given time (getting killed does indeed affect you).

quote:

---

A kind and openhearted person? Heavens no, but I'm not being insulting either, it's just an expression that I use. And I don't exclusively call people I disagree with darling, it just seams that way as the amount of text I address to people I disagree with is some 50 times greater then the amount I direct towards people I do agree with.

---

Ok. Just had that impression.

quote:

---

What about that catastrophe going on in England? But that aside, just about every instance of gun control leads to an increase in violent crimes, it's a disturbing trend even if gun control hasn't been done right (what that means exactly I'll leave up to you).

---

What about fighting the reasons that people become criminal too, instead of solely relying on guns to prevent crime? I think the UK is sorely lacking on that one. I read an article in the economist about the whole war on drugs in the UK and wasn't very impressed. I'd welcome any UK resident to comment on that one.

quote:

---

Yea, but we already have gun control and congress hasn't amended it, which is seriously disturbing. Rather, they argue that the second amendment is somehow invalid because of the exact wording, its complete nonsense, but they get away with it anyhow.

---

IIRC that's the old fight about the 2nd amendment allowing individuals to own guns vs. allowing state militias.

[Fractux]

I still want to go and check out this movie. It's probably not going to be playing in a large number of theaters though.

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/

I have yet to go see it, but a lot of my friends who have said it was very interesting.

Admitedly, this film has it's own bias, as you will no doubt tell from the intro on their site, but it's supposed to be very well made, as it won at the Cannes Film Festival. Anyways, I'm going to check it out when I get the chance and see what it has to say.

Cheers!

BTW, this was made by an American, just to clear that up.

[ 11-22-2002, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Fractux ]

[Starfighter08]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Since you are from Switzerland, I will forgive this obvious lack of knowledge.

Congress CANNOT amend the constitution, they can send an amendment to the states to be voted on and if a majority of the states agree with it, then it can be added.

---

Shame on me, I should have known it since it works pretty much the same way over here (not only majority of states but also majority of popular votes).

quote:

---

Fact is, that an amendment to get rid of the 2nd amendment would crash and burn so hard that it is insane, and EVERY congressman that voted for it would be in danger of getting voted out the next election.

All Gun owners and groups would aim their sites and money at getting those congressman defeated, and removed from office. Besides the fact that it would cause a revolution against the federal government like they have never seen.

80 million gun owners is nothing to sneeze at, and 250 million guns is nothing to sneeze at either.

The government will not try to get rid of the 2nd amendment, it would be political suicide. That is why they are trying to judiciate, legislate, and sue gun manufacturers and gun owners rights out of existence without directly going after the amendment itself.

We have 20,000 gun laws inthis country, and the cities with the HIGHEST crimerates are those with the tightest gun restrictions. When the SCOTUS(Supreme Court of the United States) finally gets a 2nd amendment case, expect most if not ALL gun laws to be kicked out. This will throw the liberals and socialists into a tizzy, and hopefully they will flee the country. Maybe they'll flee to Switzerland, or Europe. You can have them.

---

Actually, I didn't propose to get rid of the 2nd amendment, just to amend it. To allow for some sort of screening.

Commies? We don't need no stinkin' commies. We have more than enough of them. See Germany and public deficit.

[DraconisRex]

Mild side-note:

Someone earlier posted an entry about "Guns don't kill people...." I read a tagline a few months ago on this subject:

quote:

---

Guns don't kill people. Death kills people. Ask any doctor.

---

Don't remember the origin, and it could be from these forums, but I think it was on a DoveNet echo....

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starfighter08:

IIRC that's the old fight about the 2nd amendment allowing individuals to own guns vs. allowing state militias.

---

Thomas Jefferson addressed this issue in several of his writings (I will get references on request.) The Constitution only allowed the existance of an Army and a Navy to be governed by the Federal Government. The State Militias were Minutemen, private individuals who guarded and protected our shores from invaders, such as what we saw during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. They were front-line military men that were highly trained in the art of protecting these shores, and they did a fantastic job, imo.

If you want to get technical, the National Guards are not required or authorized by the Constitution, although they exist in the basic form that the Second Amendment permitted.

The Right to Bear Arms was granted to us to ensure that the Government would never again be our nemesis to freedom. This right ensured that, should Congress be so stupid as to try to take away our rights, we would have the ability to beat the ever-loving crap out of them, just as we did to King George.

I don't think there is anything to dispute -- it's American freedom in its purest form, and anyone wanting to argue with my rights had best be prepared to meet me (and 80 million other gun-owners) on the battlefield. With 1/3rd of the population marching on DC, I think it would be a short war indeed.

[Starfighter08]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DraconisRex:

So long as they still make iron pipes and firecrackers, I can assure you, I will still have access to a gun. One that is just as deadly as the ones they are trying to "control." As soon as they get the criminals to register

their

weapons, legal or otherwise, they'll have something

to

control.

They tell me that a handgun is a defensive weapon. I disagree with that, because its use is quite offensive to whatever it hits... Knowing how to use, clean, and oil a gun I consider to be very important -- at the same time, I'm not as afraid of a Peace Officer as I am a 24-year old who shakes when they hold the weapon... A Peace Officer will wing me, whereas the novice will simply shoot the weapon, and I have no idea where its going to hit. Neither does the criminal, which makes the situation more interesting.

It's simple, really -- if you pull a gun, be prepared to use it.

---

Couldn't agree more.

quote:

---

quote:

---

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

-- From the Second Amendment, US Constitution

---

It doesn't say that the States have the right to change this, nor does it give the Courts the power to impose any laws that defeat its purpose. Any law passed that does so is illegal. Period. It seems the Courts have forgotten terms like "Democracy" and "Freedom." So have many of the State Legislatures.

---

Or what "derogatory power of federal laws" means.

quote:

---

Now I'm confused -- there's a 50% probability that any male you assault in your country will shoot you, yet you're arguing

against

the right of a free people to defend themselves?!?!?

---

BUSTED. I was playing advocatus diaboli just for the sake of discussing the issue (since I have some reservations about easy access to guns). I hope you guys don't mind.

quote:

---

I will concede that training on both usage and proper maintenance of any gun you own should be required -- but then again, how much training do most people get before they sit down in front of a computer for the first time? Owning a gun is a

responsibilty

first, and defense second.

---

My point precisely. People who want to own guns should show their sincerity by submitting to training and testing.

quote:

---

In closing -- It makes no difference whether or not laws should exist or not; the only impact is results. Crime rates in both Great Britain and Australia have soared to astronomical levels in the past ten-years, as they make tighter and stricter gun-control laws. Taking the abilty to defend oneself away only increases the probability of a crime.

---

It's hardly a ceteris paribus comparison, since the implementation of gun control laws wasn't the only thing that happened in that decade. There's recession, a general tendency/readiness for violence etc. Thus you can't exactly know if gun control laws can be blamed intierely for the raise in crime.

quote:

---

What do you think of this idea? Instead of convicting our local criminals through the courts, how about simply revoking their citizenship, and sending them away to Great Britain or Australia? At least they should feel right at home.....

---

I guess the Brits and Aussies would mind, but you could still send the criminals to a moon or mars penal colony....

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fractux:

I still want to go and check out this movie. It's probably not going to be playing in a large number of theaters though.

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/

I have yet to go see it, but a lot of my friends who have said it was very interesting.

Admitedly, this film has it's own bias, as you will no doubt tell from the intro on their site, but it's supposed to be very well made, as it won at the Cannes Film Festival. Anyways, I'm going to check it out when I get the chance and see what it has to say.

Cheers!

BTW, this was made by an American, just to clear that up.

---

As for Columbine and the other guns-in-school issues, I stated earlier that guns required responsibility first. Parents need to be involved in their children's lives, but even so, there are other ways to get guns, legal or otherwise.

We have a great set of Gun Control laws here in Batltimore, yes sir! Most of them deal with Automatic Weapons and the like, which are already addressed by federal laws, and are totally redundant and only take up space on the lawbooks. Semi-Automatic Weapons are not regulated in most areas, although an M-16 (yep, it's semi...) can fire from 1 to 6 shots with a single trigger pull.

They go on and on about how to regulate -- when are they going to address the real problem -- criminals with guns? In Texas, Convicted Felons and people who can't take care of themselves are the only ones who can't apply for and get a handgun, and even a license to conceal it. If you carry, you have to have a gun-safe in your car, and can't be within 1000 yards (I think...) of any school.

Wanna know what the voilent crime-rate is? Look it up, and compare it to the rest of the States and let us know...

[Starfighter08]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DraconisRex:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starfighter08:

IIRC that's the old fight about the 2nd amendment allowing individuals to own guns vs. allowing state militias.

---

Thomas Jefferson addressed this issue in several of his writings (I will get references on request.) The Constitution only allowed the existance of an Army and a Navy to be governed by the Federal Government. The State Militias were Minutemen, private individuals who guarded and protected our shores from invaders, such as what we saw during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. They were front-line military men that were highly trained in the art of protecting these shores, and they did a fantastic job, imo.

If you want to get technical, the National Guards are not required or authorized by the Constitution, although they exist in the basic form that the Second Amendment permitted.

The Right to Bear Arms was granted to us to ensure that the Government would never again be our nemesis to freedom. This right ensured that, should Congress be so stupid as to try to take away our rights, we would have the ability to beat the ever-loving crap out of them, just as we did to King George.

---

With some help, courtesy of the French king.

quote:

---

I don't think there is anything to dispute -- it's American freedom in its purest form, and anyone wanting to argue with my rights had best be prepared to meet me (and 80 million other gun-owners) on the battlefield. With 1/3rd of the population marching on DC, I think it would be a short war indeed.

---

An armed population is indeed harder to suppress than an unarmed one. But I fear that only a blunt coup d'etat by the feds would trigger that reaction you describe. What about the tactics of taking away civil liberties one by one? Where do you draw the line? Or don't you have any second thoughts concerning homelandsecurity or similar agencies?

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starfighter08:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DraconisRex:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starfighter08:

IIRC that's the old fight about the 2nd amendment allowing individuals to own guns vs. allowing state militias.

---

Thomas Jefferson addressed this issue in several of his writings (I will get references on request.) The Constitution only allowed the existance of an Army and a Navy to be governed by the Federal Government. The State Militias were Minutemen, private individuals who guarded and protected our shores from invaders, such as what we saw during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. They were front-line military men that were highly trained in the art of protecting these shores, and they did a fantastic job, imo.

If you want to get technical, the National Guards are not required or authorized by the Constitution, although they exist in the basic form that the Second Amendment permitted.

The Right to Bear Arms was granted to us to ensure that the Government would never again be our nemesis to freedom. This right ensured that, should Congress be so stupid as to try to take away our rights, we would have the ability to beat the ever-loving crap out of them, just as we did to King George.

---

With some help, courtesy of the French king.

quote:

---

I don't think there is anything to dispute -- it's American freedom in its purest form, and anyone wanting to argue with my rights had best be prepared to meet me (and 80 million other gun-owners) on the battlefield. With 1/3rd of the population marching on DC, I think it would be a short war indeed.

---

An armed population is indeed harder to suppress than an unarmed one. But I fear that only a blunt coup d'etat by the feds would trigger that reaction you describe. What about the tactics of taking away civil liberties one by one? Where do you draw the line? Or don't you have any second thoughts concerning homelandsecurity or similar agencies?

---

Oh, I know that without France, we would have remained a Colonial Government, under the thumb of good ol' King George, for a lot longer. As it stands, my thanks to France in this regard. Now, if we could just get some cooperation at the UN on certain other international matters....

Our liberties are disappearing, one by one, but just like the Civil War, somebody's toes will get stepped on. When that happens, will it be North Vs. South, East vs. West, or East & West vs. the Central States?

I'm still studying the Homeland Security Bill, in detail, and will issue a report on a seperate thread at a later date. At this point, stopping nukes from showing up in Los Angeles is a bit more important to me than being harrassed at the airport, or them learning that I am pro-liberty. I mean, all they gotta do is ask.

Which line did you want to discuss? The one about my rights protecting me against the state, or the ones stating that the government is supposed to guarantee my safety from foreign powers? The lines are close, granted, but there is a small border between them that must give way to freedoms, but you must survive long enough to enjoy them....

[d8alus]

quote:

---

, although an M-16 (yep, it's semi...) can fire from 1 to 6 shots with a single trigger pull.

---

I'd like to know where you got that info. An M-16A1 has full auto capabilities and an M-16A2 has safe-semi-burst (where semi fires 1 round per trigger pull and burst is a 3-round burst) and trust me there's no way to get more than 3 rds out on a single trigger pull, I've tried! Besides, AFAIK M-16's are not available to the general public. AR-15's on the other hand, I don't know much about except that it's the civilian counterpart and is supposed to only have safe and semi.

quote:

---

it's American freedom in its purest form, and anyone wanting to argue with my rights had best be prepared to meet me (and 80 million other gun-owners) on the battlefield. With 1/3rd of the population marching on DC, I think it would be a short war indeed.

---

The constitution and bill of rights were put in place to avoid the need for an aggressive take over of gov't. (although since somehow people in large groups lose their common since, voting is somewhat ineffective at times)

And I had more I wanted to say, but my incessant absent-mindedness got a hold of it...

[Guest MIKE113]

quote:

---

When the SCOTUS(Supreme Court of the United States) finally gets a 2nd amendment case, expect most if not ALL gun laws to be kicked out. This will throw the liberals and socialists into a tizzy, and hopefully they will flee the country. Maybe they'll flee to Switzerland, or Europe. You can have them.

---

Bravo Jaguar!!!!

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kiran:

I'd like to know where you got that info. An M-16A1 has full auto capabilities and an M-16A2 has safe-semi-burst (where semi fires 1 round per trigger pull and burst is a 3-round burst) and trust me there's no way to get more than 3 rds out on a single trigger pull, I've tried! Besides, AFAIK M-16's are not available to the general public. AR-15's on the other hand, I don't know much about except that it's the civilian counterpart and is supposed to only have safe and semi.

---

You are correct -- I'm running off three hours of sleep, so bear with me. However, I have seen an M16A1 fire as many as 4 rounds in a single auto-burst. The ones we were using were made by Matel, which is still funny to me. I thought the NCO's were kidding us until I saw the insignia... "Uhhhhhh...."

quote:

---

The constitution and bill of rights were put in place to avoid the need for an aggressive take over of gov't. (although since somehow people in large groups lose their common since, voting is somewhat ineffective at times)

---

That was the reason, but they also wanted to make sure that Congress understood they worked for US, not themselves. Should legal routes fail to hear The People, the Second Amendment gave The People the power to implement Anakin Skywalker's "Aggressive Diplomacy."

The Federal Courts have acted outside the scope and intent of the Constitution, and "twist-terpret" whatever new law they feel is necessary. However, that right has never been granted them by Congress or the Constitution -- ask the average citizen how they feel about their rights, and they'll ask, "What rights?"

The only entity in existence that can do legal interpretation on the Constitution or anything related to it is the US Supreme Court. The lower courts, when they pass laws that inhibit rights and freedoms, are doing so as renegades -- read the Constitution as it is written about how the Court System works, and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

That means that about 80% of the laws on the books, if they could ever make it to the Supreme Court, would be tossed out on their ear.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

BUSTED. I was playing advocatus diaboli just for the sake of discussing the issue (since I have some reservations about easy access to guns). I hope you guys don't mind. [smile]

---

I don't mind a bit. I was just surprised at the contradiction of military/anti-gun thoughts.

quote:

---

My point precisely. People who want to own guns should show their sincerity by submitting to training and testing.

---

I'd say that testing isn't required. If you make gun-owners subject to the same laws that Peace Officers have to follow about Excessive Force, then most people will get the training they need before they buy the weapon. The ones that don't, and blow their license will be in jail anyway, and even after their release, won't be able to get another gun.

quote:

---

It's hardly a ceteris paribus comparison, since the implementation of gun control laws wasn't the only thing that happened in that decade. There's recession, a general tendency/readiness for violence etc. Thus you can't exactly know if gun control laws can be blamed intierely for the raise in crime.

---

I will concede that there are elements involved that cannot be accurately measured in determining what the entirety of effects are....

quote:

---

I guess the Brits and Aussies would mind, but you could still send the criminals to a moon or mars penal colony....

---

Nah... Better idea, and a LOT cheaper. After someone is convicted of a felony crime that requires one or more lifetime sentences, and they have exhausted all appeals, take them off The Peoples' payroll.... You do this by using 3 members their State's National Guard, and issue them one-each 30-cent rifle bullet.... Line the prisoner up, and order the Guards to shoot-to-kill. Why should The People continue to pay for a prisoner that will not be leaving prison in the first place???

This will make serious crimes considered serious by the would-be and actual criminals.

[ 11-22-2002, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ]

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

The constitution and bill of rights were put in place to avoid the need for an aggressive take over of gov't. (although since somehow people in large groups lose their common since, voting is somewhat ineffective at times)

---

They were also put in place to give us our proverbial "line in the sand" should the government infringe on those rights. If government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. And it's usually a minority who initiates change - like in the American Revolution.

And Jag, I have a concern that as the way the Supreme court has acted over the past several years, they are unwilling to step in and make a determined ruling on the 2nd ammendment - because they forsee the possibility of future change where gun ownership by individuals is not protected.

Is this so that they can one day declare such act unconstitutional?

Or is this because they wish to allow Congress full discretion?

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rm:

FYI: The Mirror is a classic example of a British Tabloid newspaper, more interested in sensationalism (and celebrities) than real news, so anything they say should be taken with a pinch of salt

---

The Mirror was mentioned in the first post

quote:

---

The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the articleÔÇÖs battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

---

I think i'll shut up now...

[Guest]

quote:

---

Blacks and Guns

Newsmax

| 5 December 2002 | Alec Rawls

African-Americans have a serious problem with guns. They don't have enough of them. Despite being victimized by crime at several times the rate of whites, only 30 percent of black adults own guns, compared to 43 percent of whites. (1)

Blacks are also heavily represented in California and in those Northeast and Midwest states which, like California, deny citizens their right to bear arms. Thus criminals in black neighborhoods can usually be confident of not meeting armed resistance from the law-abiding citizenry. This safe working environment emboldens criminals to commit more crimes.

But that is only half the problem.

In the absence of self-defense, the moderating influence on crime must come from the police. Unfortunately, the way police crack down on crime ÔÇô by cracking down on all kinds of minor infractions, looking for excuses to search people, being suspicious of everyone who looks suspicious ÔÇô is a great irritant to the law-abiding citizens. Greater police presence also brings the drug war down on blacks with terrible force, prosecuting huge numbers of African-Americans for consenting behavior.

This leaves America's black neighborhoods on the horns of a dilemma. Residents have a choice between being murdered, robbed and raped, or being subject to an overbearing police presence and sometimes to unjust prosecution.

This no-win situation was on display in Cincinnati the spring before last. Because Ohio is one the seven states (mostly in the Midwest) that do not issue any gun permits, community defense relies entirely on policing. (2)

Irritation at the heavy police presence erupted in riots after a young black man was shot trying to escape arrest. To mollify community anger, policing was lessened, resulting in 73 murders over the next two months, a 700 percent increase over the same period the year before. (3)

Both horns of this dilemma could avoided if the law-abiding people were allowed to bear arms. They would be able to defend themselves and each other from crime, which would deter predation from inside the community, allowing police presence to diminish. The police would have a few more dead predators to scrape off the ground, but far few victims.

Gun control laws in the United States originated as a scheme for keeping blacks disarmed. By turning gun rights into privileges, granted at the discretion of local police chiefs and county sheriffs, whites could keep blacks from bearing arms while still in practice maintaining their own rights. The slope turned out to be slippery and, in all but eight states, whites lost their gun rights too.

Finally in 1987 people of all races started to reclaim their gun rights through the "shall issue" movement, requiring police chiefs and county sheriffs to issue gun permits to all adult applicants who are not disqualified by history of crime or mental illness. (4)

The crime-reducing effects of shall-issue laws have been well documented over the last 15 years, and the current economic downturn is only accentuating the effect. Crime rates are stable in the 33 states that now protect gun rights, while many anti-gun states are experiencing a resurgence of crime.

Boston, for instance, one of the nation's most anti-gun states, experienced a 67 percent increase in murder last year. That is not as shocking as it sounds, as the rate is still fairly low, but it is significant nonetheless. At the extreme end, Oakland, Calif., is experiencing a return to crack-era murder rates. Similarly, murder in anti-gun Chicago is surging, while ex-murder capital Detroit actually had one less murder last year, after passing a "shall issue" CCW law in 2000.

Interestingly, the shall-issue movement has been slowest to reach those states in the Northeast and Midwest that were the destination of the great northward migration of Southern blacks in the hundred years after the Civil War. Today Southern blacks can all get gun permits, and the safer streets and lessened police harassment that inevitably follow. Now it is the North's turn to stop denying people their constitutional rights.

Rights are not conditional on need. Nevertheless, no group needs gun rights as much as African-Americans. Many blacks live in impoverished conditions where crime thrives, but bringing in more police, and having them use every excuse to question and search, is a terrible burden. Law-abiding blacks must be free to defend themselves and each other so that they can live as safe as other people without being under the heel of the police.

Alec Rawls is a columnist for the Stanford Review. Contact him at [email protected].

---

Alec Rawls is black by the way. And he has his head on straight!!! No victim mentality here, but then again, he's conservative.

[ 12-06-2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Lotharr]

Poverty and crime go hand in hand.

All these hot issues but no understanding of casual factors. One can debate nonsense all day long but if people did not live in economically void, poverty induced crime pockets, this wouldn't be an issue.

When people have justice they live within law and community.

[Raven]

Well Lotharr, I agree that poverty stricken areas do indeed have higher crime rates, which can only lead me to imagine that these areas need to increase the average income per capita. Now, the best way to do this is to cultivate businesses. The best way to allow businesses to develop (and move in) is to reduce taxes and (especially in this case) crime. Now, it's highly demonstrable that gun rights reduce crime, and therefore the logical thing to do would be to pass shall-issue laws and reduce government spending (and thus taxes).

Oh, and Jaguar, that's a delightful article you've found there, it's always nice to hear something positive from our African American citizens.

[Lotharr]

Good call...that's why local governments are creating loop holes the size of Texas in their contracts. The company must shift capital when a better deal comes along! Erno it's because they won't come into town without the loop holes....but wait!?!?!

That's why corporations are seeking to become anational. Moving HQ's and capital out of the country.where you just can't put a price tag on no tax and no regulation....

It's a big mystery why poverty has continued and median wages have stagnated over the last decade of boom

[Guest]

quote:

---

When people have justice they live within law and community.

---

There he goes again, justice and all that fun stuff.

Lotharr, get this, HIGH taxes is what chased business's out of those communities in the forst place. Having children out of wedlock in order to rceive welfare created an IMMORAL society that built upon itself until the business that was still there after the tax hikes are now closing because of the criminal danger in those neighborhoods.

Your cry for justice and what the government did to fix it is what created the problem in the first place.

DID YOU GET THAT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

The creation of the wlefare state is what CREATED this socalled ghetto and created your lack of justice and high crime rates and lack of jobs.

LOWER TAXES, Welfare reform, job training and tax breaks for business is what will create a decent neighborhood out of these slums.

But NO, you want justice, Tax the terrible awful rich and give to the poor, the poor deserve it. Well, it's been tried and it has failed.

MISERABLY!!!

The poor deserve the opportunity to raise themselves above government handouts, they deserve the opportunity to succeed without being punished for it.

Get government out of the welfare and social engineering business and things will work themselves out. The socalled poor and crime ridden that need your socalled justice can create that justice themselves. That is the problem, you don't think they can succeed without government intervention, whereas, if given the chance, I know they can.

[Guest]

quote:

---

That's why corporations are seeking to become anational. Moving HQ's and capital out of the country.where you just can't put a price tag on no tax and no regulation....

It's a big mystery why poverty has continued and median wages have stagnated over the last decade of boo

---

It's NO mystery, when your country is not watching out for your interest, then for your investors sakes you need to move somewhere that does.

When the federal government taxes a company 2-3 times on the same dollar, and if you move to another country and you get taxed on that same dollar once, then you are going to move. THAT IS THE WAY OF FREE ENTERPRISE and capitalism.

If the Federal and state governments had left corporate profits ALONE and just taxed the income of the workers, then those companies would still be where they started.

NOTICE A PATTERN HERE LOTHARR?!!!

Your justice again, it has chased off the very thing that would have created it...

Your type of justice is a good thing, huh?

Your justice has destroyed the very thing that it would have taken to create it.

But you won't get it, your mind is closed to such things, why? because you hate the very thing that would actually bring prosperity to everyone,

companies, business, and HUGE corporations,

But because they have been taxed out of the country, your tax base to create your justice is disapearing, when in fact if you had nurtured those business's and companies and huge corporations, your justice would have appeared without you having to do a thing.

To bite the hand that feeds you is a very bad way to run a country.

[Lotharr]

Those companies were created to serve socity not pick its bones, take a crap, and fly away....Jefferson whould smack you in the head.

Tax?!?! What are you talking about?!?! So if we tax 30 billion (not even) then give it right back we are ripping THEM off?

What on earth are you talking about?

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

If the Federal and state governments had left corporate profits ALONE and just taxed the income of the workers, then those companies would still be where they started

---

When workers cannot properly organize into DEMOCRATIC bodies and have a hand in deciding company policy they are being taxed without representation. They are being taxed by government and the company. The government because that money goes back into corporate coffers and by the company because CEO's effect a 400:1 wage imbalance because they are beholden to none but themselves and their peers robbing the workers of their share in the prosperity THEY worked for.

No taxation without representation!

[ 12-06-2002, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[Guest]

quote:

---

When workers cannot properly organize into DEMOCRATIC bodies and have a hand in deciding company policy they are being taxed without representation. They are being taxed by government and the company. The government because that money goes back into corporate coffers and by the company because CEO's effect a 400:1 wage imbalance because they are beholden to none but themselves and their peers robbing the workers of their share in the prosperity THEY worked for.

No taxation without representation!

---

I love how you have fallen right into the trap they layed for you.

Let's see, why would business want to get involved in government? HMMM, maybe because they wished to be left alone, instead of regulated and taxed out of existence? Hmmm, I wonder why the government regulated and taxed them to death?

To make things fair for everyone, so they tax and regulate the companies in order to take that money and then give it to those less fortunate and bring about the justice that you are so fond of talking about? Hmm.

We get back to your justice again Lotharr, which of course created the situation that you say you loathe so much.

And this class warfare thing is just OLD, my god, if I have a doctorate in business and I can make the business profitable, then I deserve a percentage of the profits that I make for the company. If I OWN the company, I took the capital risk, therefore should I not profit from it as well? I created the jobs, without me the workers would not have a job. If the workers want a say in my company, they can buy an interest in it, or EARN an interest in it. I am not just going to GIVE them interest in my company and lower my rate of pay because it would be fair.

I start a business to support myself and my family, I DESERVE to profit from that risk.

A worker that works for me gets the minimum that I can get away with, sorry, but that's the way the REAL world works. If the worker wants a say in how I run my business, again, he can either buy an interest in it, or EARN an interest in it.

The owners set the wage, not the government, there ya go again Lotharr, you want the government involved in regulating PRIVATE companies, so the ONLY way a company can protect itself is to lobby and create special interest groups to protect them. YOU have created what you claim to loath.

ARE YOU GETTING IT YET?!!

Deregulate business, untax business and they will have NO interest in the government because it does not effect them, besides common sense stuff, such as accounting practices and environmental concerns. That is small stuff though.

DEREGULATE it and get government OUT of their pocket books and they will have NO interest in A:lobbying government to a point where they control it, and B: the people are the ones DIRECTLY effected by the government and therefore take a bigger role in that government because they get control back.

AGAIN LOTHARR, Your ideas have created the morass that you hate so much. Government used to bring justice to the "common man". Well, if government had not tried to bring that justice there would be no common man because no one would be poor or unemployed. We would ALL keep more of what we earn, those that do fail would be helped by private organizations that would want to push them to self sufficiency so that they culd slide some other poor slob into the slot, instead of the government wanting to BUILD those poor peoples numbers so that they could control them easier because when you control the food and the cash, you control the people.

YOUR ideas are what have created the situation Lothar that you loathe so much.

Have I said it enough times for it to sink in yet?